Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Medical Laboratory Technicians (Salaries)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the resolutions, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, passed at the meetings held in Glasgow on 23rd November, 1961, and in Edinburgh on 24th November, 1961, of the Association of Scientific Workers concerning the salary agreements recently negotiated by the Whitley Council on behalf of the medical laboratory technicians of Scotland; and if he will now take immediate steps to implement these agreements.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have seen these resolutions. The agreed salaries will operate from 1st April.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that failure to honour these resolutions is shockingly inconsistent with the orderly economic system built up in the country over generations? Will he look into the matter with a view to seeing that these agreements properly arrived at are duly honoured by the Government?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that I can add to my original Answer.

Lochs (Fish Stocks)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to permit the stocking of further lochs in Scotland with fish as an additional attraction for tourists

and to establish the controls necessary to prevent irresponsible depletion of the stocks.

Mr. Maclay: The improvement of fishing in Scottish lochs, by stocking or other means, is primarily for the owners of the fishings; and the Scottish Tourist Board is prepared to assist in certain circumstances. The question of control will, no doubt, be considered by the committee on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries which I am appointing.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the greatest handicap here is that once the lochs are stocked, they may be irresponsibly poached instead of fished in accordance with proper regulations? Does he agree that it would be no hardship to the general public if this were done in the ordinary way that anglers have on rivers, in which case the money could be spent on stocking? Would not this be a great attraction to tourists?

Mr. Maclay: Doubtless, that is one of the matters which the committee on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries will consider.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very great importance in this whole matter of research, especially research into trout fisheries? Does he not think that it was clearly proved in the Report of his Department last year that the bias is now towards salmon and away from trout research, and will not this be very deplorable especially for the Scottish hill lochs?

Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of the very valuable work which goes on at the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory. I am not aware of what he refers to in the latter part of his supplementary question, but I will look at it.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it good enough that this tremendous potential tourist asset which could bring tens of thousands of pounds to Scotland is left to the whims of a few private owners to determine whether or not it should be developed?

Mr. Maclay: I know very well that many owners are prepared to co-operate with the Scottish Tourist Board and with hoteliers to improve lochs. There is the


difficult question of poaching to which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred; that has to be considered, and will be.

Salmon Breeding

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what success has followed the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board's work on the artificial expansion of salmon breeding; and whether it has proved practicable to stock additional rivers.

Mr. Maclay: Some rivers affected by the Board's operations have been stocked with eggs and fry and the Board has carried out experiments in the rearing and planting of smolts. It considers that preliminary results are satisfactory. The artificial stocking of other rivers is a matter for the proprietors and district boards concerned.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect to have evidence of the success or otherwise of this very valuable development, and will he give publicity to the work which is being done so that it may become known throughout the country?

Mr. Maclay: I understand that a reliable assessment cannot be made until four or five years after the smolts have migrated to the sea. I take the right hon. Gentleman's second point well. Publicity should be given to the result.

Local Authorities (Rent Rebate Schemes)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities operated rent rebate schemes in the financial years 1956, 1959 and 1961; and what was the total amount rebated in each of the above years.

Mr. Maclay: In 1956, 37 local authorities operated rent rebate schemes and the total annual amount of rebates granted was estimated to be £11,259. The corresponding figures for 1959 are 55 and £237,900, and for 1961 56 and £198,500.

Mr. Gourlay: Is not the enormous increase in the rent rebates being given by local authorities a direct result of the rent increases which the Secretary of State has forced them to make as a result of the high interest charges which

are the responsibility of the Government? Will he consider making substantial increases in the subsidies paid to local authorities in order to ease the burden on the lower-paid workers?

Mr. Maclay: When the hon. Gentleman has had time to digest the figures I gave, he will see that his conclusions are not correct. Only the figures for 1959 and 1961 are comparable, and he will note that less was rebated in 1961 than in 1959.

State Management Districts (Off-Sales Licences)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give his consent to off-sales licences granted by the Licensing Courts in State management districts.

Mr. Maclay: It is my practice to examine on its merits each application for any authority to sell liquor in a State management district to see whether special circumstances exist which would justify my granting it.

Mr. Brewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but may I ask whether he could say what he is trying to prove by the State management experiment? Is he trying to show that the Scottish Office is at least capable of running a pub? Does not he think that things are managed better in England? If Woolworth's wish to sell drink in England, the matter is left to a licensing court. Why should my right hon. Friend incur political opprobrium by turning down an off-licence certificate to the Wholesale Co-operative Society in a State management district?

Mr. Maclay: Unfortunately, I find that in many of my functions I have to incur political opprobrium. The answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend would involve going into very deep waters, if that is the correct description in this connection. I do not think that Question Time is the time to go into the matter in full.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the Secretary of State aware that these licensed premises and hotels have played a very satisfactory part in the life of the local communities in which they exist? It must seem a little strange, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that his hon. Friends


are so greedy and grasping and want to get for their own private interests profits which should go to the State.

Mr. Maclay: I am convinced that anything for which I am responsible is run very well and fulfils a useful purpose, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are strong conflicting views about the desirability of State management.

Mr. John MacLeod: It may be that they are well run, but why should these districts be treated in a way totally different from any other district in Scotland? Surely this experiment should be allowed to have some healthy competition within it when my right hon. Friend's own local licensing courts agree that there should be such competition.

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that to answer all these supplementary questions would take me much more time than is permissible at Question Time.

Mr. MacLeod: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Ambulances, Midlothian

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances in Midlothian are operated by one man only; and if he will make it compulsory for each ambulance to have two men in attendance.

Mr. Maclay: Normally all of them. But an attendant is provided if requested by the general practitioner and the majority of emergency calls are dealt with by ambulances from Edinburgh which are normally double-manned.

Mr. Hill: Is the Secretary of State aware that many ambulances, when they go to pick up patients, are manned by one man? When they go to pick up stretcher cases, that man must beg assistance from the public. I know of a case in which a fifteen-stone man was involved and where the man driving the ambulance had to get his wife to help to carry the man out. Would not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and ensure that ambulances are manned by two men instead of one?

Mr. Maclay: If the general practitioner requests a second man, that man

is, as far as I know, almost invariably provided. What the hon. Gentleman may not appreciate is that 80 per cent. of ambulance cases are sitting cases. It would not be sensible or practicable to provide two men for every case.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general practitioner is not always involved? In a case involving an accident which
I have drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, when the ambulance arrived there was only one man, the driver, in it. No one can blame him. Could not we have a service under which two men are sent with an ambulance to prevent trouble?

Mr. Maclay: As I said in my Answer, the majority of emergency cases are dealt with by ambulances which are double-manned. I am investigating the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and hope to write to him very soon about it.

Teachers

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes taking to overcome the growing shortage of teachers required to meet existing educational needs and the additional shortages which will accrue from educational developments such as raising the school age, reducing the maximum size of classes and introducing compulsory part-time education.

Mr. Maclay: I have written to the three main teaching bodies asking them to discuss with me this serious problem for which there is no single or simple answer. I shall also meet other bodies. After these consultations, I shall consider what further steps may be taken.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Secretary of State realise the magnitude of the task which faces him in the next ten or twelve years? I hope that he will take a long view—and also a short view—of this problem. Does he realise that, if he is to meet the needs of teaching alone as expressed in his fourth Departmental Report, he must obtain at least 12,000 teachers in the next ten years and that to do this he must be prepared to spend money at a rate and in a quantity which he has never before attained?

Mr. Maclay: Of course, I am fully aware of the gravity of this problem, but I am not convinced that money is by any means the only issue involved in solving it.

Fire-Fighting Services, Hawick

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reviewed the fire-fighting services in Hawick since the fires in mills in 1959; and if he intends to establish a full-time manned fire station in the burgh.

Mr. Maclay: I have been discussing with the South-Eastern Fire Area Joint Committee the need for whole-time firemen in the burgh and I await its proposals. The number of pumping appliances at the station has been increased and their pumping capacity has doubled.

Commander Donaldson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the increase in the number of pumping machines in the area, and while appreciating the high standard of the volunteer firemen in Hawick, may I ask him whether he will ask his advisers to consider that, if there were a big fire in a mill in Hawick and at the same time another in Galashiels where the major full-time force is maintained, great difficulty would arise? Will my right hon. Friend consider that point in the discussions which are proceeding?

Mr. Maclay: I will certainly see that that point is borne in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that some firemen in the rural and outlying districts consider that they are ill-equipped in that they have not enough skilled people and that, while ordinary people can help very greatly in putting out fires, unless there are enough skilled and trained men in the brigades, great danger may result? The members of fire brigades complain that there is a deficiency in skilled men because of competition from other better paid trades.

Mr. Maclay: That may be, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will join me in paying a high tribute to the part-time men for the invaluable work that they do.

Air Services

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has now made to British European Airways concerning the Toot-hill Committee's suggestions on the improvement of air services in Scotland, in order to further industrial growth.

Mr. Maclay: I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to consider the Toothill Committee's suggestions. B.E.A.'s present plans for its summer services provide for the use of larger aircraft and increased capacity on Scottish routes.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which gives some encouragement. Has he pointed out in his representations that dissatisfaction with the air services in Scotland is not by any means a new thing and that a large number of British chambers of commerce, not least that in my constituency, the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, have constantly made representations about the importance of better air services? Has my right hon. Friend any hope that there will be an improvement in the winter months as well as in the summer schedules?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot forecast what will happen in the winter months, but I should tell my hon. Friend that the schedules have been sent to the Scottish Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation, to the Scottish Council, and to the Scottish chambers of commerce for comment.

Mr. Strachey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the needs of Dundee in this matter. It is the one major city of Scotland not served by a direct air service to London or to the South in general. This is really a very unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Maclay: I am aware, and have been for some years, of Dundee's flying problems.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that we have a magnificent aerodrome at Prestwick? Will he ascertain whether we could have more services to that airport?

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since British European Airways began to operate, it has never had a single suggestion from any individual associated with the Toothill Committee, and, even though the Chairman of the Toothill Committee is also Chairman of the Scottish Advisory Council, he never asked B.E.A. to give evidence to his Committee and at no time did he himself make any suggestion for improving the services, although he had the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Maclay: This is getting very wide of the Question.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the date on which he expects the building of the second phase of the extension to Victoria Hospital to start; and if he will give an indication of the date of completion.

Mr. Maclay: The regional hospital board expects to place the contract in May and to start work shortly after that. The present estimated construction period is two and a half years.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is more than two years since he gave an assurance that the building of the hospital would start in the autumn of 1961? Now that it will not start until May this year, will he give an assurance that his Department will take every step possible to ensure that the building is completed by the anticipated date?

Mr. Maclay: Although I agree that the starting date has again slipped, I am advised that there is good prospect that the completion date will remain as stated when I was last in communication with the hon. Gentleman.

Hospital Houses (Rents)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will revise his proposals for raising rents of hospital houses in the light of recent representations made to his Department by the Confederation of Health Service Employees.

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decision he has reached on rents for hospital houses as a result of the representations of the Confederation of Health Service Employees.

Mr. Maclay: I have carefully considered all the representations made to me, but I still consider that the new basis of rent introduced in November last year is fair and reasonable.

Dr. Mabon: Is it not grossly unfair for the Secretary of State on the one hand to agree to the freezing of pay for many members of hospital staffs and on the other hand to propose substantially to raise their rents? Is it not grossly unfair to deal in this way with sections of the community who are performing such great service and whose standard of life is being reduced by Government action?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will be well aware that a great many of the previous rents were extremely low indeed and bore no relation to the value of the accommodation.

Miss Herbison: Is not the Secretary of State aware of all the problems connected with these houses being tied houses? Is he not also aware that many of the people living in these houses are amongst the law-wage earners in Scotland? Since he has done nothing at all to help to increase their salaries, it is totally wrong for him to single out these people and put this very great increase on their rents, thus lowering their standard of living.

Mr. Maclay: On the first point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the rents of tenants who are required to live in houses at the hospital may be specially abated by up to 15 per cent. to allow for this. On the second point, she should not say that I have done nothing to help to increase the salaries of persons in the hospital service. She will realise that salary negotiations go on through the normal channels.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the rent increase involved runs up to 400 per cent.? Is it not unjust in principle that employees in tied houses like this should have a level of rents imposed on


them based on a calculation which is considerably higher than that obtaining in any other public authority in the country?

Mr. Maclay: Percentages are very misleading in a case like this, because it depends entirely on the point of departure.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that these increases are very great indeed and that some of these workers are paying far more than they would pay even for privately-owned property elsewhere? Is he also aware that the majority of them live in areas which
do not provide the ordinary amenities of life which people now expect? This fact has not been taken into consideration in fixing the rents.

Mr. Maclay: No. The hon. Lady is well aware that the Treasury Valuer has been willing to consider appeals against his valuation, and this is just the kind of point which would be considered on an appeal.

Dr. Mabon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of these replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Nurses (Salaries)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the application for an increase in salaries for all nursing staff lodged with the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council on 11th August, 1961.

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a decision will be made on a claim for an increase in salaries which has been before the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council since 11th August, 1961.

Mr. Maclay: The Council is meeting to discuss this claim on 13th February.

Dr. Mabon: Was it not quite monstrous that the Secretary of State should have presumed to tell the House only a minute or two ago that these negotiations are going on all the time, when he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health have done nothing since 11th August? As these people have very low salaries indeed compared with

those earned in other industries, and as in the light of the Government's pay pause there can be no argument about productivity in relation to nurses and midwives, is it not ridiculous that this matter has been delayed for so long? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to speed up the consideration of these claims and give these people a decent wage for once?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot add to what I have said. The Council is meeting to discuss this claim on 13th February.

Miss Herbison: Does it not seem strange that it takes six months from the time to claim is lodged until a Council meets to take any decision on it, although at the same time the Minister responsible can without any questions impose on some of these people higher rents with no right of redress? Is he aware that these nurses are among the most devoted people that we have and it is all the more important that the Government should treat them in a reasonable and generous way?

Mr. Maclay: I certainly agree that nurses are some of the finest people we have in the country. I do not agree that the changing of rents is necessarily a hardship. It is something which had to be done and had to be looked at in the context of what rents were being paid.

Hospitals, Dundee (Physiotherapists)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the establishment for physiotherapists at Dundee Royal Infirmary and Maryfield Hospital, Dundee, respectively; how many full-time physiotherapists are at present employed; and what are the salary ranges for a physiotherapist so employed.

Mr. Maclay: The Board of Management would like to see eight physiotherapists at Dundee Royal Infirmary and seven at Maryfield; at present four full-time physiotherapists are employed at the first and three full-time and three part time at the second. Salaries range from £525 to £650 a year for the basic grade of physiotherapist to £710 to £870 for the superintendent grade.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that over Dundee as a whole the number of physiotherapists is running at rather less than half what it should be? Does he not agree that this is due to the pitifully inadequate salaries that they are offered? Is he aware that Dundee Football Club recently offered a physiotherapist for their players a salary substantially in excess of the salary received by the physiotherapist in the main teaching hospital responsible for thousands of Dundee people? Although Dundee Football Club is the best club in the country, is not the Government's meanness creating a cock-eyed situation?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is really developing the almost classic case for almost indefinite inflation, one step leading to another for ever and ever more.

New Teaching Hospital, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the estimated dates for beginning and completing the new teaching hospital at Dundee.

Mr. Maclay: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the hon. Member in his letter of 10th January, it is expected that building work will start in 1964; the regional hospital board will announce the actual starting date nearer the time. The construction time will probably be five to six years.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State deny absolutely the authoritative rumours which are now rife in Dundee that the starting date may be 1965 instead of 1964?

Mr. Maclay: I gave the hon. Member the very latest information in my possession. I will certainly see if I can run down these rumours.

Housing, Glasgow

Mr. J. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for new houses in Glasgow and of the acute shortage of land, he will allow the areas at Darnley and Summers-town to be used for building.

Mr. Maclay: Proposals for the development of these areas were

included among amendments to the Glasgow Development Plan put forward following the quinquennial review. The objections to these amendments were the subject of an inquiry last year. I am aware of the urgency and shall issue my decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Bennett: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that it is ten years since an earlier Secretary of State for Scotland advised the local authority to look to these areas for the building of houses? Is it not a shocking state of affairs that in 1962 we are no nearer having this land for the building of houses than we were then?

Mr. Maclay: As my original Answer indicated, I have received the report of the inquiry and am studying it as fast as I can.

Mr. Hannan: Is it not possible for the Secretary of State, having made up his mind on this matter, to let the local authority know his decision in advance of his decision on the overall plan?

Mr. Maclay: I would not exclude that possibility, but certainly at this stage I must have some idea of what the overall plan will look like before I could even consider what the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the reasons for his Department's objection to the site at South Toryglen being developed by Glasgow Corporation for housing purposes.

Mr. Maclay: South Toryglen is zoned for housing in the Review of the Glasgow Development Plan. This Review has been the subject of a local inquiry, the report of which has recently been received and is now under urgent consideration.

Mr. McInnes: Can I reasonably appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again to accelerate matters?

Mr. Maclay: I will do the best I can but this is a very complex plan.

Peel Hospital, Selkirkshire

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why in Command Paper 1602, the Hospital Plan for Scotland, there is no mention of the


Peel Hospital in Selkirkshire either in the major or minor works programmes; and if he is satisfied that this hospital, serving a large area, is adequate and up to the standards required in the hospital service.

Mr. Maclay: Minor works are being undertaken as necessary, and I believe the hospital is providing an adequate standard of service. Priority for major reconstructions is a matter, primarily, for the regional hospital board.

Commander Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever opinion the regional hospital board has reached, it is not the opinion of the chairman and members of the Border Area Hospital Board, nor indeed of the vast majority of my constituents and those who also live in Berwickshire, apart from Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles? Is he aware that this general hospital is in such
an isolated position that staff are not keen to go there? While not denigrating in any way the excellence of the hospital staff, from surgeons to potato peelers, who all perform excellent work, I would point out that this position is a source of great anxiety to my constituents and those in an adjoining constituency. Can my right hon. Friend go further and give some hope of a properly situated hospital up to modern standards in the reasonably near future?

Mr. Maclay: I understand my 'hon. and gallant Friend's concern, for this is a very important matter, but he will appreciate that I am bound to have regard to the views of the regional hospital board in matters of this kind. I would mention that more than £230,000 have been spent on this hospital over the last ten years.

Shipbuilding, Aberdeen (Trawlers)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will request the White Fish Authority to speed consideration of four applications for loans or grants to build trawlers in Aberdeen, in view of the difficult shipbuilding position.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that the Authority's Scottish Committee has, in accordance with a policy discussed with the trawler owners' association, deferred consideration of three applications and that a fourth has been withdrawn.

Decisions on individual applications are a matter for the Authority and much as I regret the shipbuilders' difficulties I could not properly intervene.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are applications outstanding with the White Fish Authority for building in the shipyards of Aberdeen which would not come under the category he has mentioned? Could he not make representations to the White Fish Authority, at a time when orders are few and it is very important to try to keep skilled men together in teams, that these applications should be considered with greater speed than they are at present?

Mr. Maclay: All I can undertake to do is to study my hon. Friend's supplementary question, because I was not aware of the particular point she made in the first part of it.

Burgh of Culross

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received concerning allegations of maladministration in the burgh of Culross, Fife; whether he will investigate such charges; and whether he will reply to the complainants to that effect.

Mr. Maclay: I have received representations about certain payments claimed by contractors and allegations that councillors have contravened certain statutory provisions. I can determine the legality of payments by a local authority only if they are reported
to me by the auditor; and any person who has reason to believe that an offence has been committed should report the circumstances to the criminal authorities. I am sending copies of the hon. Member's Question and of this Answer to the town clerk, the auditor and the persons who made the representations.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very much obliged for that Answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is rather strange. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of the contractors were councillors or in one case an ex-councillor? Is not the case for prosecution abundantly made by reference to the relevant Section of the Local Government Act? Would


the right hon. Gentleman undertake to eliminate the impression created at Culross that he and his Department have been stalling on this matter for political purposes?

Mr. Maclay: That is really a most preposterous suggestion for the hon. Member to make, and I have not heard it made by anybody else until this minute. I would refer the hon. Member to the original Answer which I gave, which sets out the position as it stands and explains the action I am taking.

Child Care (Voluntary Homes)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care concerning the rôle of voluntary homes; and if he will take the necessary legislative and administrative action to give effect to the Council's recommendations for raising the standards of care, accommodation, equipment, quantity and quality of staff to those of the local authorities.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The Report did not recommend legislative action, but I have substantially increased the total grant available for raising the general standards of the homes. Local authorities have also agreed to increase their maintenance payments for the children for whom they are responsible.

Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us into the secret as to who published and printed this Report? It is published in rather a tawdry fashion. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer this question. In view of the value of the Report, because it is an excellent one, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish it as a Command Paper? Will he, further, consider this, that the Report points out that many of these voluntary homes have no case work at all at the children's homes, and since this is a very important matter will he give some urgency to its consideration?

Mr. Maclay: I will certainly consider everything the hon. Member has said in his supplementary question. I quite agree that the Report is a very valuable document, but I should not like to commit myself to publishing it in any

other form, because opinions and tastes differ as to what is the ideal form of such publications.

Edinburgh-Glasgow Road (Parking)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he intends to prohibit parking on the A.8 road between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Maclay: As soon as the necessary signs can be erected. Delivery is expected in the next few days and the no-waiting Order should be in force later this month.

Mr. Stodart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to get these signs up has taken, I think, over a year since this question was first raised, and that motorists will welcome the erection of them after waiting so patiently for them?

Mr. Maclay: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments, but the fact is that the democratic procedures which we invariably follow in the Scottish Office in such matters do take a considerable time to implement.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has formed of the number of vehicles which will cross the Forth Road Bridge as compared with the total of those at present using the ferry and those travelling on the A.9 road to or from the Kincardine Bridge.

Mr. Maclay: Up-to-date information on this matter is being compiled by the consulting engineers to the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board. Until this work is completed any prophesy I could make now would be based on out-of-date figures and might be misleading.

Mr. Stodart: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this survey is to be carried out in some climate of urgency? Is he aware that the rate of fatal accidents in Edinburgh is the highest of any among the Scottish cities? Is he aware that the suburban railways in Edinburgh are under sentence of death, and is it not of great importance that heavy traffic or through traffic


which wishes to by-pass the city and to keep out of the centre should be enabled to do so?

Mr. Maclay: On the question of urgency I can assure my hon. Friend that this is going forward as fast as reasonably possible. All the other points he raised, while related to the Question, do not really arise directly out of it.

Mr. Steele: Could the Secretary of State give us some explanation as to why a survey is necessary to find out what traffic is likely to cross the bridge? Is there some doubt whether it will be completed or not?

Mr. Maclay: There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The point is that since the original surveys were taken, before commencement of building, the pattern of traffic has changed, and it is necessary to do another survey, particularly in relation to tolls.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Education (School Places)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he is now formulating to meet the expected increase of 104,000 pupils by 1975 in the rolls of education authority and grant-aided schools.

Mr. Maclay: The present level of educational building is fully adequate to provide by 1975 the additional places required.

Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a most extraordinary Answer? Is it not the case that in many places today existing pupils cannot be taught within the four walls of the school buildings and that in some places schools are running two sessions on one and the same day? How is he going to accommodate those 104,000 children without building new schools? Does he realise that the bulge of a few years ago has now become a plateau of definite height? Can he assure us that he will make a better go at solving the problem created by the plateau than he did when he was faced with the bulge?

Mr. Maclay: The simple answer to most of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that 137,000 places have

been provided during the last three years, which suggests that there should be no special difficulty about providing 104,000 additional places by 1975.

Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that most education authorities in Scotland are seriously worried at this moment at the lack of proper buildings for the education of their children? Is he also aware that there are many heads of schools who have realised that they just cannot do the job they are supposed to do because of the scattered nature of the buildings? Is he not at all worried that added to those difficulties will be the extra one of increased population?

Mr. Maclay: I agree that there are many imperfections, and it will take time to cure them, but I think that if she studies the figures I gave in my answer to the first supplementary question the hon. Lady will appreciate that this matter has been tackled with energy in past years and that we should be able to solve it.

Remand Homes

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many remand homes are not being fully utilised; and what accommodation exists in such homes that is not being used.

Mr. Maclay: All homes are fully used, but with a rapidly changing population any one may have many vacancies on any particular day.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that my information is that full use of accommodation at remand homes is quite uncertain? They are mostly homes covering a regional area. Would he not consider the concern of parents and probation officers and others because children, especially the first-offence cases, are being removed to Barlinnie and other prisons? Could he not examine the possibility of freezing some little accommodation in certain remand homes for use for this purpose till he gets his remand centres ready?

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that freezing of any of this accommodation might not have the effect he desires, because the population is bound to change almost hourly


in these remand homes, and while at any given moment there may be vacant places they may be filled up quickly and others may become empty.

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care which recently reported to him on Scottish remand homes.

Mr. Maclay: I have already asked local authorities to submit proposals for improving their remand home arrangements. I shall announce my decisions on the more general recommendations after I have received the views of the local authority associations, whom I have consulted.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point that arises from the Report is that this is not a matter for the local authority? Is he aware that the Special Committee expressed dismay at the inadequacy of quality and quantity in the staff of the remand homes and pointed to the need for national negotiating machinery to secure that more and better paid staff should be employed? Is not this a matter for the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility?

Mr. Maclay: I am bound to consider the views of local authorities on this matter before I come to any conclusions.

School Dental Service

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have no regular school dental service; and how many more dentists would be required to give full dental coverage.

Mr. Maclay: About a hundred more dentists are needed to provide adequate regular dental inspection. Treatment is a less serious problem as the parents of most of the children requiring it prefer to use the general dental service.

Mr. Manuel: Is not this lack of staff and withering of the service a quite deplorable state of affairs? The Secretary of State will be aware that certain local authorities have decided that they are to allow children off from classes to attend outside dentists. Would it not be a great saving of educational

time if the preservation of teeth and dental care were done in dental clinics in the school? Will he tell the House how he is to recruit the necessary dentists in order that the work can take place at the schools?

Mr. Maclay: I agree that this is highly desirable and discussions are going on about it, but the hon. Member should appreciate that only three of every eight parents offered treatment through the dental service accept it the rest prefer to use the normal service.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dentists in Scotland are extremely worried about the condition of children's teeth which they consider to be largely due to the overeating of sweets? Can he not have some research made to see whether something can be done to ensure that children obtain the necessary vitamins to protect teeth against decay due to sweet-eating?

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have just launched a big campaign to try to encourage children to eat sweets at more sensible times. I am sure at any rate that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) would be an advocate of happy smiles.

Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what I am concerned about is not the extraction aspect of this problem but the regular and urgent examination of children's teeth at school in order to ensure preservation? That is the aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman should apply his mind and not the actual dental work ensuing from inspection.

Mr. Maclay: I do not disagree with the hon. Member.

Central Scotland (Regional Planning)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the proposal made by the Scottish section of the Town and Country Planning Association, in its Interim Report on Investigations into Dispersal Policy in Scotland, a copy of which has been sent to him, that he should appoint a small commission to examine the regional planning problems of the central belt of Scotland; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Maclay: These matters involve issues of policy and administration which are of such wide-ranging importance and complexity that I do not consider they could be usefully remitted to a single commission, however representative.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Secretary of State implying that he believes that his own officials are perfectly competent to deal with these problems? Does he not recognise that when voices of such authority as are contained in this memorandum suggest that a commission would be valuable, this suggestion might well be taken up? Is he aware that such a commission might even offer advice which his own planning officials have not so far put forward?

Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the importance of the body which produced this memorandum, but frankly I am not very keen on jumping into appointing yet another committee for the sake of appointing one. The stystem of consultation between the Department and the local authorities and other interested organisations is effective, but my mind will not be closed at some future date if there is need to consider any further steps.

Mrs. Hart: Is not this a matter which is very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with by consultation between his planning officials and separate local authorities? Is he not aware that the whole point is that the matter should be considered on a regional basis and that from that point of view a commission which could gather information on a regional basis could provide information which might be valuable?

Mr. Maclay: The new town of Livingstone and the area proposals theme are an example of what the hon. Lady wants.

Approved Schools

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how often approved schools will be visited by his inspectors under the new regulations issued in December; and how many are employed in the inspectorate.

Mr. Maclay: It is hoped that one or other of the two inspectors principally responsible for approved schools will be

able to visit each school at least twice each term. In addition, they, and the specialist inspectors and my Department's medical officer, will visit individual schools as often as may be necessary.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this number will be adequate to avoid a recurrence of such incidents as happened in my constituency about three years ago? In view of this and other Questions on these matters, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the time has arrived when he should review all the services for young people, covering remand homes, remand centres, detention centres, borstals, children's homes and the rest in order to establish a new and logical service for young people?

Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the recent appointment of a second inspector for approved school work will enable the inspectorate to keep in touch more closely with the schools than was the case formerly. We will certainly watch whether the service is adequate. The second part of the supplementary question raises a very wide issue.

Tourists (Tax)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the taxing of tourists in Scotland; and if he will give an assurance that, in considering such representations, he will take into account the need to develop tourism in the Highlands, and the traditional hospitality of that area.

Mr. Maclay: The suggestion for such a tax came up at a conference recently organised by the Scottish Tourist Board and it is considering it. The only representation which I have had came from the hon. Gentleman himself. The Answer to the second part of his Question is "Yes, Sir".

Sir D. Robertson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appoint the Scottish Tourist Board? Is he not aware that a proposal of this kind to tax very welcome visitors, wherever they come from, is wholly repugnant to people in


Scotland? Would it not injure the tourist trade which is the Government's economic policy for the Highlands?

Mr. Maclay: I feel that it would be only right to await the Scottish Tourist Board's views before attempting to come to a conclusion on this important matter.

Mr. Stodart: Is it not the case that in several countries where tourism is one of the most successful industries a small taxe de séjour is imposed and there is no feeling of any hostility on the part of visitors because of it?

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not also the case that the country which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has in mind, which I think is Switzerland, is in a position entirely different from that of Scotland? It is surrounded by great nations whose nationals can walk, drive or go by train over the border and do not have to cross the Channel or undertake a long journey.

Mr. Maclay: This is obviously a matter which allows differences of view.

Mr. Hoy: Is it not complete nonsense to think of taxing people who come to certain parts of the country and excluding all the rest? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that it is nonsense and have done with it?

Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to say that it is nonsense before the Tourist Board, which is doing invaluable work in attracting visitors to Scotland, has expressed its views.

County Road System

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received a memorandum stressing the need to accelerate the rate of progress of the improvement of the county road system and other relative matters; and what reply he is making.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that the County Council of Ross and Cromarty is considering sending me such a memorandum. If and when it does so I shall study it carefully.

Mr. MacLeod: Does my right hon. Friend realise that at the present rate it will take forty-three years and thirty

four years respectively to bring trunk and Class 1 roads even up to the required standard and that the rate of progress is not keeping pace with the increased traffic? Is it not time that we had a comprehensive road programme which should be carried out with a sense of urgency?

Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a very substantial increase in expenditure on road building in recent years.

Cowglen Military Hospital (Land)

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if a definite decision has yet been reached with regard to the future use of the land at Cowglen Military Hospital.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The Western Regional Hospital Board has not yet completed its plans for the reorganisation of general hospital services in Glasgow and in consequence a decision cannot be reached.

Mr. Mclnnes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to accelerate proceedings in the negotiations which are taking place? The right hon. Gentleman must, and I believe he does, recognise the tremendous housing problem in Glasgow.

Mr. Maclay: I have asked the regional hospital board to complete its review of sites and services as soon as possible.

Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the time of waiting at the out-patient department at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley.

Mr. Maclay: I am not aware of any general difficulty; but if the hon. Member has a specific complaint I shall gladly look into it.

Mr. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received complaints of patients having to wait four and five hours and even longer in the out-patient department? Is he aware that no responsibility attaches to the


staff of the hospital and that they require facilities at the hospital with which only he can deal? Will the right hon. Gentleman get on with the job of giving Paisley decent hospital facilities?

Mr. Maclay: I should be very grateful if the hon. Member would send me the details of matters which cause him concern. The regional board has agreed in principle to provide more premises in order that additional clinics may be held.

Miss Herbison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not dependent upon my hon. Friend sending details of one or two cases of someone having to wait a long time? Is he aware that in quite a number of hospitals there is no appointment system and that waiting time is far too long and that he should be trying to do something about these matters?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady must be aware that I have taken a great deal of trouble to try to get hospitals to institute the very system she is asking me about, and many hospitals have done so. I have only to receive details to follow up a particular case.

Migration

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the gross and net figures of migration of people from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, respectively, during 1961.

Mr. Maclay: Figures will not be available until May.

Primary School Places

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of primary school places provided by new school building in Lanarkshire and Scotland, respectively, from 1946 to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Maclay: The number of primary school places provided in the period 1946 to 1961 inclusive is approximately 41,000 in Lanarkshire and 259,000 in Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his boasting only a short time ago about the rapidity of the

provision of school places, this is considerably less than half the number of primary school children in Scotland? Is he aware that there has been a serious division of opinion between his Department and the Lanarkshire education authority on the question of school buildings which has held up work now for over a year? Will he see whether something can be done to meet Lanarkshire's problem so that Lanarkshire especially, if not the whole of Scotland, can get on with the provision of very badly needed school places? Will he especially see what can be done in my own constituency at Wishaw, where there is a very serious lack of school places?

Mr. Maclay: I very greatly regret the difficulties which have arisen with the Lanarkshire education authority over the last period. Fortunately, I am glad to say that it has now agreed to continue building.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than two-thirds of the school building programme as now decided up to 1963 will be concentrated in the new town of East Kilbride? We have no objection to East Kilbride getting school places, but is he aware that one-third of the building programme is quite insufficient for the rest of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Maclay: The programme now submitted to me will undoubtedly need further examination as time goes on.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Accidents (Speed Limits)

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent the imposition of a 40 miles per hour speed limit has reduced the number of personal injury road accidents on roads previously without a speed limit and on roads where there was previously a 30 miles per hour limit, respectively; and if he will relate the figures of his answer to the several categories of road users.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): From a sample survey in the London Traffic Area the Road Research Laboratory concludes that on roads previously without a speed limit personal injury


accidents were 19 per cent. fewer than would otherwise have been expected. On roads previously subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit the number of accidents was not significantly affected by the change.
There was no significant difference between the results for different classes of road user.

Mr. Page: As these speed limits really do, as my hon. Friend said, reduce accidents, will he ask our right hon. Friend to do a little propaganda to this effect instead of sending out circulars to local authorities telling them, in rather an anti-speed limit tone, to review the speed limits?

Mr. Hay: I do not accept the interpretation which my hon. Friend places on the circular which the Ministry has recently issued. We have neglected no opportunity of drawing the attention of all road users to the importance of keeping to speed limits because of their road safety value.

Road Accidents (Alcoholic Beverages)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the relationship between the increased volume of advertising of alcoholic beverages in the month preceding Christmas, 1961, and the number of road accidents during this period; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: I doubt very much whether such a study would produce any useful results.
We take every opportunity both at Christmas and at other times of warning people of the dangers of drinking and driving. New proposals for strengthening the law about drinking and driving are an important feature of the Road Traffic Bill now before this House.

Mr. Edelman: But is it not the case that last Christmas the average number of road deaths per day rose by 25 per cent.? In these circumstances, and despite the efforts of the Ministry, is it not absolutely useless for the Minister of Transport to appear on television announcing that he has just had a glass of sherry but that his wife has been driving him while at the same time powerful vested interests are concerned

with the promotion of the sales of alcohol, thus making sure that the number of drivers affected by alcohol is increased at a time of such significance in regard to road casualty rates?

Mr. Hay: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but I have answered the Question which he tabled. We frequently take the opportunities that present themselves to warn people about the dangers of drinking and driving, and we have now brought before the House a Bill which will strengthen our hands in this respect.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I had some Ministerial responsibility for road safety we persuaded the brewers to put up in very many of their premises posters pointing out the danger to road safety in drinking too much? Will he consider whether some further steps in this direction might not be feasible?

Mr. Hay: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that quite recently a number of brewers have been doing this again. In addition, there have been certain advertisements by the manufacturers of alcoholic drink drawing attention to the danger of drinking and driving.

Mr. Edelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Epping New Road, Buckhurst Hill (Lay-bys)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the projected lay-bys to be made on the Epping New Road in Buckhurst Hill.

Mr. Hay: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to various proposed sites for lay-bys between Woodford Green and Warren Hill. Further consideration of these has been postponed until a decision has been reached on the sites proposed further North where the road passes through Epping Forest.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are much concerned about safety on this road? While it is highly desirable to


preserve to the full the amenities of Epping Forest, would he see whether, if he comes to the conclusion that lay-bys would interfere with the amenities, a clearway might not be expedient?

Mr. Hay: We are always prepared to consider proposals for clearways where the design characteristics of the road are suitable. We are at the moment seeing whether something can be done to provide clearway conditions and lay-bys along the whole length of this road. Discussions are continuing with the Epping Conservators.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Orders

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport how many shipbuilding orders, and of what total tonnage, were placed in British yards during 1961; and how this compares with 1959 and 1960.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): In 1961 183 vessels of 887,000 gross tons were ordered from United Kingdom shipyards, and orders for 18 vessels of 198,000 gross tons were cancelled. In 1960, 232 vessels were ordered totalling 558,000 gross tons and orders for 24 vessels of 228,000 gross tons were cancelled. In 1959 there were orders for 185 vessels of 319,000 gross tons and orders for 21 vessels of 314,000 gross tons were cancelled.

Launchings

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total tonnage of shipping launched from British yards during 1961; how this compares with 1959 and 1960: and what is the potential capacity of British yards.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: In 1961 1,190,000 gross tons of merchant ships were launched in United Kingdom yards. The figure for 1960 was 1,330,000, and for 1959 1,370,000 gross tons. The industry estimated last year that potential annual output was some 1,600,000 gross tons, apart from new naval construction.

Mr. Williams: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for those figures. Can he confirm, or otherwise, to the House that the importance of the figures is that they show that there is at the moment a decline in the shipbuilding industry? Does not this heighten the need for an urgent and immediate debate on the matter in the House of Commons? Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is not quite good enough for him to tell me in a few seconds' time that this is not his responsibility? Surely it is his responsibility to press this on the Leader of the House. The House deserves a debate on this matter, and very soon indeed.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the improvement since 1959 is encouraging, but at the same time a considerably greater volume of orders would be necessary to keep the industry fully occupied. The net orders last year represented less than half the capacity. As to the matter of a debate, I live in hope, as my hon. Friend does.

Dr. King: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one very important factor in the obtaining of orders for shipbuilding is the amount of credit facilities which the Government are willing to provide for the shipbuilders who seek to obtain contracts abroad? Will he give very grave consideration to this important aspect?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir, but I am quite confident that the new arrangements for export credits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 23rd January will be of great assistance to our shipbuilders in obtaining foreign orders.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give the percentage of those figures applying to Scotland and say whether the position shows any improvement?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot give the percentage without notice, but, speaking from memory, I think it is fair to say that Clydeside had a very good year, especially in the latter half of 1961.

Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is a problem with which the unions and the employers are gravely concerned, and that it is one which we ought to be discussing in the House as a matter of urgency? Will he please see to it that we have such a debate, so that we may have an indication of what the Government are proposing to do? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to Clydeside, but will he also remember that Belfast is in a very serious position? What has he to offer Belfast, which is supposed to be part of the United Kingdom?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I certainly look forward to a debate as much as does the hon. Gentleman, and we live in hope. I agree that the situation in the Belfast yards is serious.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 6th February].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out subsection (2).
Clause 4 does something——

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir William. Has your attention been drawn to the very bad conduct of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is taunting hon. Members on this side about a lapse of manners which he had yesterday, which caused a commotion in the House and a slander to be uttered against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order——

The Chairman: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), if he is referring to an incident at all, is referring to what happened in the House. We are now in Committee.

Mr. Manuel: I am sorry if I said "House", Sir William. I should have said "Committee". The incident happened after the House had gone into Committee and after the Mace had been placed below the Table. It was that incident to which I was drawing your attention.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member of his explanation, but I think that we should get on with our work now.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Fast asleep, again.

Mr. John Rankin: Liar.

Mr. S. Silverman: Clause 4 does something which is, I think, new in our legislation. It imposes penalties under the criminal law on British subjects for entering the United Kingdom. I think that the Committee will probably agree with me in the view that, if we are to have this extension of our criminal law, the extension ought to be meticulously examined and ought not to go beyond the necessities of the case—if the case, indeed, has any necessities—and ought not to impose an unreasonable burden on the ordinary citizens of this country.
There were a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper which sought to define or limit the actual offences committed by overseas British subjects in a criminal desire to come and visit the national homeland, but these have not been selected. Subsection 2 is not a provision which imposes any criminal liability on the unfortunate British subject from overseas who has managed to evade, or did not know about, or got in without, a proper certificate or voucher or authority, or without compliance with some instructions which the Home Secretary some day is to give to immigration officers. But it applies to all of us who are here already and who are made subject to a penal code—unless all 50 million of us constitute ourselves into a wide network of espionage and stooging generally on behalf of the immigration officers.
In asking the Committe to leave out subsection (2), I invite the Committee to consider carefully what it does. I invite the Home Secretary, even if he thinks my description of the Clause exaggerated and unfair, nevertheless to look at the subsection and consider whether he really wants to have it in the Bill.
If any person knowingly harbours any person…
The rest of the subsection directs attention to something wrongful that "any person" may have done, but the "knowingly", as I read the subsection, does not refer to that, but only to the harbouring of a person.
Thus, if one has harboured a person who has committed, or who has rendered himself, as it were, liable under

subsection (2), even though one did not know of it or had no reasonable ground for believing it to be the case, one is liable, with the word "knowingly" placed as it is in this subsection.
What kind of person is it that one must not harbour?
…any person who he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to have committed an offence under subsection (1) of this section, being an offence committed by entering or remaining within the United Kingdom, he shall be guilty of an offence.
So, if someone comes and wants to rent a room in one's house one must presumably inquire who he is and how he comes to be in the country.
That one must do first, because otherwise one will not be able to say, if one harbours an offending person, that one had no reasonable ground for believing that he was such a person, and, in order to be able to say that one had no reasonable ground, presumably one must make reasonable inquiries. If one has made no inquiries, then the defence of not having any reasonable ground will not avail one, because one will be told that a reasonable man would have asked, knowing the law, whether this was a visitor from overseas and whether he had entered legally or illegally.
First, one must ask him who he is, where he comes from, and, if he is from a Commonwealth country, whether he has a voucher and whether he has had permission to land. One must ask all these questions in order to begin to establish for oneself the case that, if he turns out to be a "wrong 'un", one had no reasonable ground for suspecting it and that one therefore did not know.
What is the offence which he may have committed? It is if he
enters or remains within the United Kingdom, otherwise than in accordance with the directions…of an immigration officer…
One must not only inquire whether the immigration officer allowed him to land, but what directions the immigration officer gave him, and what he has been doing in the meantime, and how long he has been here, and whether during all that time he has complied with the directions.
The end of the subsection says:
…any offence under this subsection, being an offence committed by entering or remaining in the United Kingdom, shall be deemed


to continue throughout any period during which the offender is in the United Kingdom thereafter.
It is a continuing offence which goes on throughout the whole of the remainder of his stay in this country.
One hon. and learned Member yesterday told us that it was obvious that people covered by the Bill and its penalties were people coming here to become permanently resident—I think that he used the word "settle". Such a person might come as a child or young person. He might not have had authority. He might have been here for five, ten, twenty or twenty-five years thereafter, but his offence is a continuing offence and anyone who harbours him, when either knowing it or having reasonable grounds for supposing it, would be guilty of an offence under subsection (2).
It may well be that the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will say that they do not mean anything of that kind, do not mean to be oppressive, or meticulous, or to take small points against people, and that they will not harry anybody or worry anybody unnecessarily. But it is one thing to say that in support of the Bill and quite another to make sure that nobody, in fact, will be harrassed, or distressed, or oppressed, as a result of the Bill. In a Bill of this kind there is no need to extend the bounds of the penal law anything like so far as is sought by subsection (2).
No doubt it has been included because a perfectionist in the Home Office, or in the Attorney-General's Department, has sought round to inquire with great diligence to see what kind of offence might some day be committed by somebody, and to make sure that no loophole was left and that every door was slammed tight and that even keyholes were blocked up. That is no doubt necessary with some kinds of legislation. If one were talking about bringing noxious drugs into the country, one would be at great pains to see that every possible loophole was blocked up. One can conceive of a number of circumstances in which great particularity would be justified in seeing not merely that no offence was committed, but that no possibility of an offence remained.
That does not apply to this Bill. Is great moral obloquy involved if a reputable citizen of a Commonwealth country gets into this country without having the leave of an immigration officer, or, subject to a direction, with which he complies for a time but which becomes irksome and burdensome or unnecessary, departs from without taking the proper steps to get the direction removed or modified? No doubt an offence is committed, but is it really necessary to go to the lengths involved in this Clause? On what possible grounds is it suggested that one is justified in going beyond that and saying that anyone who rents him a room, or does him a kindness, or anybody with whom he spends a weekend shall himself be guilty of an offence if it turns out that many years ago the immigrant committed an offence which remains a continuing offence by reason of subsection (1)?
3.45 p.m.
There will be created an atmosphere which the Home Secretary, I am sure, does not want. I said yesterday, and I now repeat, that the only kind of sense which the Bill makes is that it is in essence a colour-bar Bill. I do not believe that there is anyone who has followed these discussions who does not believe, as I put it yesterday, that if all immigrants from our Commonwealth countries were white, the Bill would never have been heard of.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that subsection (2), which makes it an offence to harbour people who may have committed an offence under the Bill, will apply to anywhere but those districts where there is a large coloured population? Will the Bill produce an atmosphere which will encourage people to regard their fellow citizens as equal with themselves, whatever their colour and whatever their origin? Of course it will not. There will be produced an atmosphere in which people will be afraid to afford any kind of hospitality, to offer help, to offer reasonable lodgings, to look after people, in case it should turn out that they themselves are committing the offence of harbouring under subsection (2).
The Bill is a monstrosity, anyhow, and might almost be a parody of parts of the New Testament. In this the Pharisee


will not walk past on the other side, but will call the police force to take the injured person back to Egypt. That is the kind of thing the Government are legislating for. That is the kind of atmosphere they will produce by bringing in the criminal law in this way and applying it in remote cases to people who may be at risk for many years without really knowing what they are at risk about. I urge the Minister to look at this subsection again and consider whether the Bill would not be just a little better without subsection (2) of Clause 4.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I would like briefly to support the Amendment. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary do not desire to make the Bill an occasion for an extensive superfluous addition to the penal provisions in our law. Having regard to the points put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I hope that they will make the gesture—not a very expansive gesture in all the circumstances, but very welcome—of accepting the Amendment.
What is gained by having this subsection in the Bill? If a person enters or remains within the United Kingdom otherwise than in accordance with the direction, or under the authority, of an immigration officer, it is right that there should be available, given the principle of the Bill, some sanction or machinery to bear against him. But, having done that, he is, as my hon. Friend said, harboured out of kindness, out of charity, by someone.
When the executive authority goes to the house of the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant, one of two things will have happened, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be good enough to have regard to this. Either the immigrant will be there in the house being harboured, in which case he can be apprehended for an offence under the Bill. What, on that hypothesis, can be gained by also making the harbourer subject to a penal provision in the Statute? What in the world is gained, even granted the principle upon which the Bill is founded,

by also making the man who is giving the unlawful immigrant shelter guilty of an offence? If the illegal immigrant is in the house and the authorities get him, surely in that way they have satisfied their legitimate purposes.
Alternatively, the illegal immigrant will have left the house. What, on this hypothesis, is gained by apprehending and making subject to penalty the man who has given him shelter, who let him into the stable, and the police have come along when the stable door has been left open for too long and too wide? There is nothing gained for the effective purposes of this legislation by making it an offence on the part of the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant. What the authorities are legitimately after, granted the principle of the Bill, is the apprehension of, and penalty for, the illegal immigrant.
I suggest to the Committee and to the Government that very little indeed is gained by this superfluous provision that the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant should be made subject to penalty. I hope that, having regard to considerations of that kind, and to what I admitted at the beginning, and wish to repeat now, my acceptance of the point that the Government do not desire to build on the Bill an unnecessary edifice of penal legislation, the Amendment will be accepted.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I rise now because it might be to the convenience of the Committee to deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that it is a necessary corollary of the proposal to control immigration that those who enter illegally, or those who remain longer than they are permitted to under a condition which may be imposed—and, I said yesterday, this is not likely to be imposed in many cases—should be liable to criminal prosecution if they do. This is on the basis, which many hon. Members do not accept, that the control of immigration has to be carried out.
The question arises whether it is necessary to have this provision creating an


offence which has been referred to as harbouring, but, with respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, the version he gave the Committee of what the offence is was slightly misleading. He created the impression that anyone who harboured, in the sense of taking into his premises, or renting a room to, an illegal immigrant, or to one who had remained beyond his permitted time, would be put on inquiry to ask a whole series of questions at any time before he could lawfully permit him inside.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise him not to?

The Attorney-General: The subsection does not provide anything of the sort. I want to make this clear, because this is a fundamental misconception. It is not an offence just to harbour what, to save time, I might call an illegal immigrant. The offence, and the burden of proving this rests on the prosecution, is knowingly harbouring the illegal immigrant, when the owner of the premises knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the person is an illegal immigrant.

Mr. S. Silverman: Having regard to the words
or has reasonable grounds for believing",
if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were called upon professionally to advise the keeper of a lodging house in the East End of London about the letting of his rooms to a coloured immigrant, would he advise him not to ask any of these questions?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that he is under an obligation to ask any of them. It has to be proved that the lodging-house keeper either had actual knowledge that the person was an illegal immigrant, or had reasonable grounds for believing it. If the illegal immigrant says nothing about where he has come from, or what he is doing, and if the lodging-house keeper asks him no questions, I fail to see how the person harbouring can possibly be liable to conviction. I might not carry the hon. Gentleman with me, but I think that his fears are not justified, and I do not think that this provision can have, or could be expected to have, the consequences he foresaw.
We have considered this carefully, and we believe that this is a necessary ancillary proposal to the creation of the criminal offence of illegally entering or illegally remaining in this country. I think that it is reasonable that people who are prepared to help others to escape the notice of the authorities, knowing that they are illegal immigrants, and to help them to remain here, should themselves be liable to a penalty.
I regard this provision as a necessary deterrent to those who might be tempted to set up a system to assist those who come into the country in breach of the law as it will be if the Bill is passed, or to remain here in breach of the conditions lawfully imposed under the Bill.
This is a necessary provision, though I doubt very much whether there will be any prosecutions under it, because the difficulties of proving that a particular individual has reasonable grounds for believing the man to be an illegal immigrant, or that he knows it, are not likely to lead to many prosecutions. At the same time, it is desirable that we should have this in the Bill so that if need be, in appropriate cases, a prosecution can be brought, and as a deterrent to those who might otherwise participate in the evasions of the provisions of the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am quite unconvinced by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. At the moment, we have the advantage of having with us the Leader of the House, whose principal article of faith is the brotherhood of man. History shows how that doctrine has compelled people, through the ages, to commit just the kind of thing, on the basis of religion, against which the subsection is directed. The song "John Brown's Body" commemorates a man who believed that where people were oppressed, in the way that this Bill oppresses people, it was a virtue and not a crime to help them. How many miles have some of us marched singing in memory of him!
If there is ever a prosecution under this subsection of the Bill, members of the Society of Friends—whose record in this kind of thing is very honourable—will feel not that they see a black man,


but one who was the inspirer of their faith, and who said:
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me…Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may contemplate with equanimity the prospect of prosecuting people who, in this case, will be inspired not by any sordid motive or desire to flout the law, but by the belief that it is part of a Christian's duty to see that no man is oppressed when they can prevent it.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is hardly possible to add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). This is a most intolerable proposal of the Government, and I wish to make only a few comments on what was said by the Attorney-General. In mitigation of the horror of this subsection, and in response to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), he said that the best advice he could give lodging-house keepers was not to ask any questions, because then they would not be in any difficulty. I do not know whether he would like to make that quite clear, but he apparently agrees that if lodging-house keepers do not ask any questions they cannot get into any trouble.
That is the advice of the Attorney-General; it is not what the Clause says. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may easily mislead many people by giving such advice. I submit that that is not what the Clause says, and it would be most extraordinary for the Attorney-General of England to be able to say that if people wanted to get round a provision demanding that they should have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence had been committed they could do so merely by not asking any questions. We know that this will work exactly the other way round in practice.
One of the problems in some of the areas to which immigrants go when they arrive in this country—and one of the problems which is designed to be dealt with by the Bill on racial discrimination which is now before the House, and which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr.

Brockway)—is that lodging-house keepers, hotel keepers, or other people who provide housing facilities, already operate racial discrimination.
Despite what the Attorney-General says, the Bill is a direct provocation to hotel and lodging-house keepers to exercise racial discrimination, because if they do so they will be safe, and cannot be prosecuted under the subsection. An immigrant may say, "I am in the clear. I have a voucher", or "I came in under the other Clause under which immigrants are allowed in." The lodging-house keeper may then say, "That may be so, but I have to play safe; I had someone last week who told me that he had a voucher when he did not have one." He is safer if he exercises racial discrimination than if he does not.
The Clause, therefore, clearly encourages certain people to engage in forms of racial discrimination which the Government say that they are against, although they refuse to comply with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough to help pass his Bill to make it an offence. And the same Government which refuse to make racial discrimination an offence proceed, at exactly the same time, to introduce a provision in a Bill which will encourage the application of racial discrimination.
There is only one defence for the step which the Government are taking, and the action which the Attorney-General has defended—and it is a poor one. Assuming that we accept that this kind of Bill is necessary, and that the Government are determined to have it, the only possible excuse that the Home Secretary can make for inserting this provision is that the Bill is inoperable without it. If the Government say that—and the Attorney-General did not go so far in his defence of it—that is a major argument. But if that is their argument it means that the provision will have a very wide application.
The only possible defence for this provision is that if it is not inserted in the Bill it will be possible to drive a coach and horses through it, but the Attorney-General did not say that; he said that it was a necessary ancillary proposal, or a needed deterrent. He did not claim that it was essential. If he meant to claim that, it is clear that this provision


will be applied over a wide area, and that will make its offensiveness all the greater. If, on the other hand, as the Attorney-General appeared to indicate, this subsection will be applied only very rarely—and I think that at one point he said that there would be no prosecutions under it——

The Attorney-General: I said that there would not be many.

Mr. Foot: First, he said that there would be no prosecutions at all, and a moment or two later he said that there would not be many. He can check that in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Let us suppose that there are no prosecutions, or not many—in other words, that this provision is not very important to the Bill. If that is the case, why should not the Government have the generosity to delete it? The provision will affect not merely the persons to whom its terms will be found eventually to apply; it will give a wonderful handle to some people who have been the mast passionate supporters of the Bill but whose support the Government have repudiated.
We know that some organisations in this country are attempting to stir up racial discrimination, especially in areas where great numbers of coloured immigrants are living, and we know that they are trying to intimidate lodging-house keepers and others not to take in coloured immigrants.
Does the Attorney-General believe that these evil organisations will not use this provision in their attempts to persuade lodging-house keepers? Does not he think that they will say, "You now have a perfect excuse for not taking coloured people into your house." Does he think that that kind of thing will not be done? What the Government appear to be saying is that it does not matter whether or not they have the provision, but they mean to insist on it, even with all its evil consequences.
On many occasions the Home Secretary has claimed that he was extremely reluctant to introduce the Bill, that he hates it, has fought against its introduction, and greatly desired not to have to introduce it. If he wishes to show his sincerity in making that claim he should say that he will drop this provision, at any rate. That would be a proof of his

sincerity. But if he is not even prepared to drop this provision—which his own Attorney-General says will involve very few prosecutions, and is merely a necessary ancillary proposal—very few of us will attach any credit to his claim that he was reluctant to introduce the Bill.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Hon. Members opposite have spoken as though this provision were an astonishing novelty, something being introduced into our law for the first time. Over the years many people have sought to enter this country and have been subject to a code of law which, in many respects, is similar to what we are proposing today to enact. Hon. Members who have spoken did not in this respect draw any distinction which
I have heard between British citizens and Italians or others. What they have said would have been equally applicable to any person coming to this country——

Mr. S. Silverman: I referred to British subjects.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member's comments were in no sense limited to British subjects. He was not making a patriotic speech——

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. It may be that I did not make myself clear. But I began by saying that for the first time a criminal sanction was being applied against British subjects entering the homeland.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not applying a criminal sanction against British subjects entering this country.

Mr. S. Silverman: Of course it is.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment with which we are concerned applies to British subjects who are here. It applies to those who are harbouring them.
The language used in the Aliens Order of 1953 has a great similarity to the words in this Bill. In Article 25 (2) of that Order it states:
If any person aids or abets any person in the commission of an offence under this Order, or knowingly harbours any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to have committed such an offence, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Order…
Those words are very nearly identical. They were put into that Order, which is


a consolidating Order, and they appear in Orders which were in force when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman operated those words without difficulty, and I venture to suppose that the words in the Bill can be operated equally effectively and justly under the present legislation.

Miss Jennie Lee: When listening to the Attorney-General I had the feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was taken by surprise, that he was considering the subsection for the first time. I assume that the Attorney-General is a reasonable man. It must have been evident that if we allow this subsection to remain in the Bill we shall favour the artful dodger and the good liar, and cause trouble to all kinds of simple people.
This provision will apply to coloured people, to very poor people. We have to be especially on our guard to protect them. There may be a case involving someone who has taken in a lodger. It may be that a woman is involved who may become confused. She may have heard something or she might say something. It is the simple people who could be easily trapped. An accomplished liar or a more sophisticated person would not be caught.
This subsection will bring the law into disrepute. This is a subsection which the Attorney-General himself says he does not think will be operated often. But it seems to me clear that so far as it may be operated, it will operate against the simpler and more honest type of citizen. The more serious delinquent will know how to escape this very wide net.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) suggested that there was no novelty about these words. There is not. Of course we have provisions of the same kind applicable in other branches of the law. That is not the point. There is a difference in its application in that, for the first time, a British citizen is concerned in this connection. But that is not the point.
I have listened time and again to the Horn Secretary protesting about how

sorry he was that the Bill was necessary and how much he regretted that an enactment of this kind had to be placed on the Statute Book. If that be so—I accept, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman was sincerely expressing that opinion—surely the Home Secretary will endeavour to make the Measure as innocuous and harmless as possible. Here we have taken one great step. For the first time we are prohibiting British citizens from coming freely and having the right of free entry to this country. Is it necessary to go further? Is it necessary to make this part of a penal code in the way advocated?
I am wondering how the matter will be dealt with. I accept the position in law as it was so clearly set out by the Attorney-General. I agree that the words in the Bill are "knowingly harbours", and that a person, to be guilty of the offence, has to know, or have reasonable grounds for believing, that an offence has been committed. But how are we to prove an offence? Are we to send a police officer to the house to cross-examine the person concerned and obtain evidence in that way? Shall we seize the person concerned and submit him to a cross-examination?
Just think of the words used by the Attorney-General—I accept them as being absolutely correct—that this Measure will not be used at all, or may be used only on a few occasions. If that be so, why is it necessary to create this offence? I take this opportunity to beg the Home Secretary to think again about this matter. I plead with the Minister not to inflict a criminal offence of this kind by legislation which may not be used, or which is unnecessary. I say frankly that the very fact that we propose to impose a Measure of this kind will create a great deal of mistrust and do a great deal of harm and suspicion. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give in to us on this point. Surely he can look again at this provision and do something about its exclusion.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to endorse the pleas which have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and to ask the Government to reconsider their views. The Attorney-General told us that because of difficulties of law it was unlikely that there


would be any prosecutions and that, certainly, any prosecutions there were would be very few. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), at one point the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be no prosecution and then he qualified that statement slightly. In any case, it seems likely that this Clause will not be used frequently. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they cannot consider the deterrent effect of the subsection as being out of all proportion to the damage which it will do.
After all, the provisions of the Bill as a whole are not directed against criminal activities. It is turning the traditionally free movement of Commonwealth citizens into this country into an illegal act. This subsection will carry that a step further. It is saying that anyone who knowingly harbours somebody guilty of an illegal act is himself liable to exactly the same penalties. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that this could easily involve questions of conscience of great importance to the citizens of this country or, alternatively, to Commonwealth citizens coming to this country perfectly legally.
Some of us in this Committee have on occasions given shelter, comfort and consolation to citizens of the Commonwealth or citizens of our Colonies who live in this country because if they had gone back to the Colonies they would have been subject to arrest. People who are giving shelter to such people in those circumstances might very well find themselves in a grave conflict of conscience.
I make this final plea to the Government. As they know, there is sitting at this moment a constitutional conference of immense importance concerning the future of Jamaica. Hon. Members of both sides of this Committee have had the privilege of hearing the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Norman Manley, speaking to them in this building during the last few days. What struck most of us who heard him was the singular lack of bitterness in making his views known about this Bill, and his magnanimity towards the people and the Government of this country, despite——

The Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go further from

the point of this Amendment. It is a very narrow Amendment.

Mr. Thomson: I was about to finish, Sir William.
I was wanting to say that the phrases which the Prime Minister of Jamaica used indicated that he feels sure that the Government will operate the Bill in a benign way when it becomes an Act. The Government have the opportunity here of showing that they are willing to operate the Bill in a benign way by agreeing to take this subsection out of the Clause. If it remains in, it seems to me to be unnecessarily vindictive. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise to the Committee for intervening again in our very limited time, but we have not heard a word from the Home Secretary on this matter. We have had a speech from the learned Attorney-General, which dealt with the legal side of the question raised here, but it is not the legal side of this matter that is the most important. It is a question of policy.
What is the Government's policy about this? It has been pointed out to the Home Secretary, who has not said a word, that we are here doing a very revolutionary thing, in that, for the first time, we are making it a criminal offence for a British subject to enter the United Kingdom. We have to look at that very carefully, and we want to know what is the Home Secretary's view on the point of policy involved.
Two offences are contemplated here. One is that if a person knows, he can be convicted of an offence under this subsection. If he does not know, he can be convicted of an offence under this subsection if the authority or the court decides that though he did not know, he ought to have known. That is what "reasonable grounds for believing" means. How are we to find out? Are we to have a system of search warrants in order to find out whether there were "reasonable grounds for believing" or not? I will not press that further. What has been said demands a reply from the Home Secretary, and I appeal to him to make it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have no hesitation in making a short


reply, but I cannot add to the words pronounced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
We did give this very serious consideration, not only on its merits, but also because we wished to be as reasonable over this, at this stage of the Committee proceedings of the Bill, as we could, as I attempted to do yesterday in the discussion on a variety of Amendments. I am advised by my advisers that in the light of the administration of the Aliens Order, there have been cases in which this power in Section 25 (2) has been necessary. I would be very glad to give way and not include this power in the Bill, but I am advised that it is necessary to include it. I am sorry that that is the case, but it is only after mature reflection that I must stick to

my opinion. In the circumstances, I hope that we may be able to make progress, in view of the limited amount of time at our disposal.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: We on this side of the Committee are most disappointed with the reply of the Home Secretary. We regard this provision in the Bill as unnecessary, and as an indication that the Government are not being sincere in their desire to operate the Bill in as benign and sympathetic a way as possible. We shall show our resistance to this subsection by dividing the Committee against it.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 271, Noes 183.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Hay, John


Aitken, W. T.
Cordeaux., Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allason, James
Costain, A. P.
Hendry, Forbes


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Coulson, Michael
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hiley, Joseph


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Critchley, Julian
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Curran, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Hobson, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hocking, Philip N.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Holland, Philip


Bell, Ronald
de Ferranti, Basil
Hollingworth, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Biffen, John
Doughty, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bingham, R. M.
du Cann, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duncan, Sir James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Jackson, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Eden, John
James, David


Bossom, Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Box, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fell, Anthony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Finlay, Graeme
Kershaw, Anthony


Brooman-White, R.
Fisher, Nigel
Kirk, Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bryan, Paul
Freeth, Denzil
Leather, E. H. C.


Buck, Antony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leavey, J. A.


Bullard, Denys
Gammans, Lady
Leburn, Gilmour


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gardner, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Gilmour, Sir John
Lindsay, Sir Martin



Godber, J. B.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Goodhart, Philip
Litchfield, Capt. John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R,
Longden, Gilbert


Channon, H. P. G.
Green, Alan
Loveys, Walter H.


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McAdden, Stephen


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cleaver, Leonard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Collard, Richard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
McMaster, Stanley R.




Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maginnis, John E.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Pym, Francis
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ramsden, James
Turner, Colin


Marlowe, Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marshall, Douglas
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marten, Neil
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Renton, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C-
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Walder, David


Mills, Stratton
Roots, William
Walker, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wall, Patrick


Morrison, John
Russell, Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Nabarro, Gerald
Sharples, Richard
Webster, David


Neave, Airey
Shaw, M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, William


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wise, A. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Speir, Rupert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Peel, John
Stodart, J. A.
Woollam, John


Peyton, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Worsley, Marcus


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter



Pilkington, Sir Richard
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Pitt, Miss Edith
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. McLaren.


Pott, Percivall
Temple, John M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Eric
Kelley, Richard


Ainsley, William
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Kenyon, Clifford


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forman, J. C.
King, Dr. Horace


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamliton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Awbery, Stan
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Grey, Charles
Loughlin, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacColl, James


Benson, Sir George
Grimond, Rt. Hon, J.
Mclnnes, James


Blackburn, F.
Gunter, Ray
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Blyton, William
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hannan, William
Manuel, A. C,


Bowles, Frank
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Hayman, F. H.
Marsh, Richard


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Healey, Denis
Mason, Roy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mendelson, J. J.


Callaghan, James
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Chapman, Donald
Holt, Arthur
Mitchison, G. R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James H.
Monslow, Walter


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.


Darling, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Deer, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, C. H.


Diamond, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, A. E.


Dodds, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Owen, Will


Donnelly, Desmond
Jeger, George
Paget, R. T.


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence


Evans, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Peart, Frederick


Finch, Harold
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Fitch, Alan
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie







Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Prentice, R. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Warbey, William


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Watkins, Tudor


Probert, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, David


Randall, Harry
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Redhead, E. C.
Steele, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willey, Frederick


Rhodes, H.
Stones, William
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Symonds, J. B.
Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woof, Robert


Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Short, Edward
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thornton, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thorpe, Jeremy



Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Timmons, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wade, Donald
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the beginning to insert "knowingly".
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), when moving the earlier Amendment, said that we regard some of the powers, offences and penalties in the Bill as too sweeping, and some of the rights of search, and so on, as being too sweeping. We shall be debating that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and also when we come to the Schedules.
This small Amendment is another example of an attempt to prevent the powers and definitions of the penalties in the Clause from being too sweeping. This subsection says that a person who makes any false statement, false return, or false representation to an immigration officer under the Act shall be guilty of an offence.
This Amendment would provide that he would have to be proved to be knowingly making such a statement before he would be committing an offence. The sort of example I have in mind is that of a man who comes from the West Indies and says that he is coming here and is admitted because he has a particular skill which is required here. That is one of the definitions which allow him entry. When he defines his skill in the West Indies it may mean something quite different from what it means over here.
A man who calls himself a mason in the West Indies probably has very elementary experience of the building trade, but that description is used there. "Mason", or some

such word which has a skilled connotation here, may be used there differently and he would not know that he was committing an offence. There may be cases of an unintentional offence being committed. I hope that in the circumstances the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that it would be right to put "knowingly" in that particular position because it is difficult to conceive of a person making or causing something to be made to an immigration officer, a particular return, representation or statement, without knowing it.
The point which I think is in the mind of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is that he wants to be satisfied that a person will not be liable to a conviction for an offence under this subsection unless he knows that the statement is, in fact, false, which is a slightly different thing. I think that it could be argued in some of the decisions in the cases that the word "knowingly" would be implied to cover that, but I am inclined to think that it would be better not to leave it at that.
I ask the hon. Member to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment on my undertaking to consider the inclusion of words on Report to make it clear that the person must have knowledge that the return is false, that the statement is false, or the representation is false before he can be convicted. There are various forms of words which are used to make that clear beyond doubt. I do not want to pin myself to any particular form at the present time. One may want words rather similar to the


words we discussed when we were talking about "reasonable grounds" as a whole.
There is a formula in Section 1 of the Perjury Act which would cover this point. I will undertake to give it careful consideration between now and Report to make clear beyond any doubt what is intended. If the hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment I will insert words which, I think, will satisfactorily meet the point which he wants to be met.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, after "document" to insert "in his possession".

The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 27, at the end to insert "in his possession".

Mr. Fletcher: This is another example of a case in which it seems to us that the language of the Clause, introducing new offences into our criminal law, has been drawn in a way which is unnecessarily harsh and offensive. Subsection (3, b) makes it an offence for anybody to refuse to produce any document to an immigration officer
or to furnish him with any information".
It becomes an offence if there is a refusal to produce any document whatever or to give any information whatever.
Surely there must be some limitation to those words. The Amendment is designed to provide that it is an offence only if there is a refusal by the person to produce a document which is in his possession or to give some information which is in his possession. Surely it is unnecessary for the Act to go further than that. I hope that the Attorney-General will regard these as reasonable Amendments which he can accept as an improvement to the Bill.

The Attorney-General: It is certainly not the Government's intention to make

the Bill harsh or unduly onerous. It is our intention to make it fair. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) thought fit to use those expressions. As an indication of our intentions, I will tell him that we think that there is ground to limit the documents concerned in the sense which he suggested, but that we do not think it wide enough to say, "in his possession", because the person might pass the relevant document to his wife and then refuse to produce it. We want to think of the right words. The hon. Member is familiar with the wording in another context "possession or power", and we believe that something of that sort is the right formula.
We agree that it would suffice, in respect of information, to make the position clear by including the words "in his possession".
I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and not to move the second Amendment, so that the draftsmen have scope to reconsider this provision with the object of going a little wider in relation to documents than "documents in possession" but going no wider than "information in his possession". We hope to table such proposals on Report.

Mr. Fletcher: I willingly respond to that suggestion. Indeed, I welcome any sign that the Government are prepared to accept reasonable Amendments to the Bill. That is something which we should like to encourage at all stages. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

The Chairman: I understand that it is not desired to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in page 4, line 27, after "document", to insert:
relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act
I therefore do not propose to call that Amendment, but this will not prejudice the possibility of considering at a later stage the following Amendments: In Schedule page 15, line 25, after "documents", to insert:
relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act".


In page 15, line 26, after "any", to insert "such".
In page 15, line 30, at the end to insert "such".

Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to you, Sir William.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(DURATION OF PART I.)

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 12 and to insert:
continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, and shall then expire unless Parliament otherwise determines.

The Chairman: It is in order to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: In page 5, line 1, to leave out from "expire" to end of the Clause and to insert:
on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, unless continued by an Expiring Laws Continuance Act".
In page 5, line 1, to leave out from "expire" to the end of the Clause and to insert:
on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty-three".
In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five years" and to insert "one year".
In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five" and to insert "three".
In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twelve months".
In page 5, line 3, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 4.
In page 5, line 5, to leave out subsection (2).
In page 5, line 5, to leave out subsections (2) and (3).
In page 5, line 7, to leave out "five years" and to insert "one year".
In page 5, line 7, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twelve months".
In page 5, line 9, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Butler: It will be seen that the Amendment which I have moved meets the aim of all the Amendments. Perhaps I might be permitted to run over them.
The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would

continue this part of the Act until the end of 1962. In the Government's view that is too short a period. After all, when the Bill receives Royal Assent there must be an interval in order to make the necessary arrangements to bring the controls into operation and to give adequate notice to intending immigrants of the date from which the port controls and voucher systems are to operate.
The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) would continue this part of the Act for only twelve months, but that would bring us only to the middle of 1963, and our proposal is that this part of the Act should continue to the end of 1963. If we are to have an annual debate on immigration policy it seems better to have it at the same time as the debate on the continuance of the Aliens Restrictions Acts.
The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) would continue this part of the Act for three years, which is perhaps rather longer than would accord with the general sentiments of the House. We therefore propose, in our Amendment, to continue this part of the Act to the last day of 1963. This would mean that if it is to be continued thereafter, it can be renewed, if Parliament so determines, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which annually passes through the House during November.
By November, 1963, the House will have had an opportunity, after rather more than a year's working of the new controls, to judge whether they are being satisfactorily operated and whether they ought to be continued. At that date the Government will endeavour to give the House the latest information which, as I said yesterday, we might then have on a variety of subjects. The House will then have fuller information to consider whether this part of the Act should be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
I trust that the Committee will accept the fact that, in view of the many Amendments on the Notice Paper, the Government have put down an entirely


reasonable Amendment which meets the spirit of all the Amendments on this subject.

Mr. Denis Healey: We on this side of the Committee are grateful that the Home Secretary has thought fit to curtail the duration of the Act from five years to two years but we still maintain that the Act should come to an end on 1st January, 1963. It is already evident from the discussions that we have had in Committee and on Second Reading that this is a ramshackle contraption which was put together hugger-mugger and rammed through the Parliamentary machine without any proper opportunity for discussion.
The Government and those responsible for drafting the Bill put it together without being in possession of the facts which were necessary to meet the problems which they claim that the Bill is intended to meet and without the administrative forethought which would enable them to operate the Bill fairly and successfully, if it is to fulfil its purpose. I believe that by the end of this year right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will wish to have a chance to look at the whole problem again.
It has been very clear from the debates so far that the Bill was not originally designed to cope with the problem of Commonwealth immigration, but was simply a panic improvisation to appease racial pressures inside the Conservative Party at the conference which took place last year. That is absolutely true.
I regret that the guillotine procedure farces us to bring the debate to an end at 5 p.m., and I do not propose to prevent my hon. Friends and others who wish to speak from having the chance to say a few words. There is no doubt at all that this is a panic improvisation put before the House without even those responsible being in possession of the facts. Even the facts about the number of people entering and leaving the country are still under dispute. The Home Secretary admitted not being in possession of the relevant facts when the Bill was first published.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member is taking part in our debates for the first time. He might at least adhere to

the facts, then we can attach importance to what he says. I gave the full facts yesterday and I have throughout given the figures, which have been exactly the same throughout.

Mr. Healey: The Home Secretary will recall that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading he said that he was not in possession of the facts. The facts which he gave to the Committee yesterday were published only during December. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that when the Bill was drafted and first presented to the House the Government or the Home Secretary were in possession of the figures of immigration which were quoted yesterday.
We have had the extraordinary situation of Ireland first being put in, then taken out and then put in again, although the Home Secretary yesterday admitted that he did not know whether it was desirable for the Irish to be included in the operation of the Bill and he doubted very much whether it was possible for them to be included even if it was desirable.
The question of health has been introduced as a second fig leaf to cover the Home Secretary's nakedness. Some hon. Members opposite have made a great deal of the fact that there is a smallpox epidemic in parts of the country and that this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has made a great deal of the point, although it has been clear from the Answers to Questions that all the powers that the Government need for preventing entry to this country of people suffering from diseases are already possessed under previous legislation and that the powers given to the Government in the Bill are less extensive than those which they already possess.
Nobody knows, either in the Government or outside it, precisely how the voucher system is to work and, in particular, how the first come, first served, part of it will work. The Prime Minister of Jamaica has told me recently that nobody in Jamaica knows whether this will be operated in Jamaica or here, although if a young man in Jamaica wants to come to this country he must risk his whole livelihood to get the money for the fare and then he may


find at the last moment, when he gets here, that he is being excluded. We simply do not know how this part of the Bill will operate. Nobody has told us.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Had the hon. Member been here yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertake to put in a provision to deal with exactly that point. The hon. Member was not here yesterday and he has no right to make these statements.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member is incorrect. I was here yesterday and heard that said, but I still say that we do not know how the problem will be dealt with. The hon. Member has just confirmed what I said. All we know is that the Government have at last found that there is a problem and they propose to introduce legislation to try to deal with it at a later stage. This simply emphasises that the Bill as presented to the House is a ramshackle contraption which has not been fully thought out and which is not appropriate even for the purpose, which we do not support, for which it is supposed to be intended.
I appeal to the Home Secretary seriously to consider giving the House the opportunity to examine this whole business again at the beginning of next year. Perhaps the moral cowardice which led the Government to introduce the Bill in the way and at the time they did may be a less powerful factor in determining Government policy by the end of the year than it is today. In any event, it is conceivable that there may be another Government.
It may well be that by the beginning of next year, the country may have taken the decision to enter the Common Market. In that case, the country will be committed to work towards a situation in which Sicilians and Greeks will be able to come here more freely than New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians. In such a situation, a great number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite would want an opportunity to look again at the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, as it will then be, to ensure at least that Commonwealth subjects are not treated worse than citizens of coun

tries with which we are associated in the Common Market.
There is the further possibility that by the beginning of next year we may find that we shall not be able to get into the Common Market on acceptable terms. I hope that in such a situation right hon. and hon. Members opposite will have recovered their faith in the potential of the Commonwealth and will realise that if we are to make anything of the Commonwealth in future one of the first steps to be taken is to remove the unfair discrimination against Commonwealth citizens which is contained in the Bill.
For all these reasons, I appeal to the Home Secretary, at a later stage—I understand that I cannot move our Amendment now, although I may discuss it—to consider introducing a further Amendment that would enable us to look at the whole question again at the beginning of 1963.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: This is an Amendment of some importance and I welcome it, because there is absolutely no reason why the aliens legislation, which is renewable every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, should be more favourable to foreigners than the Bill should be to Commonwealth citizens. This must be very much in the mind of the Government, as it is in the minds of all of us, and it should be our wish to do exactly the opposite.
Quite apart from the principle, it should be desirable in practice to look at this matter again and to limit it to a year, two years or whatever the period may be, because we are breaking a principle and a long tradition when we embark on the Bill. The Irish problem is by no means resolved, but is merely shelved. We have no idea, whatever, even approximately, how many Commonwealth immigrants will be admitted in any normal year under the Bill. It is left very much to the discretion of the Government, as a great deal is left to them in the Bill.
In these circumstances, I regard it as essential to limit the duration of the Bill and to review it at the end of a fairly short period. In the ordinary way, I should have been inclined to make its


duration one year to bring it into line, if for no other reason, with the aliens legislation. It may be, however, that we shall not have sufficient evidence to look at the matter again comprehensibly and clearly as early as a year after its enactment.
I would, therefore, be content if, in the first instance, we review the working of the Bill at the end of 1963, as the Government suggest, on the understanding that thereafter, if it is renewed, it will be renewed on the same basis as the aliens legislation.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I should like to enter a caveat. The Home Secretary spoke about the Bill being included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which continues other Acts of Parliament in force. My recollection is that the Chair rules strictly on the administration of Acts which the House of Commons seeks to extend and that it would be found impossible to discuss at length the working of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, as it will then be, in Committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
I enter that reservation because the argument which the Home Secretary, no doubt in good faith, used might have misled the House if he thought that we could have a general discussion on the administration of the Act when we deal with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Perhaps you, Sir William, or the Home Secretary will consider this important point.

Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps I have time for just a sentence or two. If we adopt the procedure recommended by the Home Secretary we will not have any opportunity whatever for reviewing the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. If we use the machinery of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill we can accept the Act as it stands and extend or repeal it altogether, but we cannot amend it. It is the opportunity to review and to amend that we require at an early date.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF PART II.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out "whose father" and to insert "one of whose parents".
The provisions of Part II of the Bill, which deals with deportation, have so far been treated as being less controversial than the rest. None the less they need watching, and this Amendment is designed to make a small but not unimportant increase in the number of exemptions from the effects of Part II. Although, as I say, the provisions with which we are now concerned have given rise to less controversy than the rest, it would be very undesirable if, as a result of this Measure being passed, there were wholesale recommendations for deportations by magistrates; and it is widely felt that there is a risk of that happening.
The Amendment aims at extending only very slightly the numbers of Commonwealth citizens who will be exempt from Part II. If it were accepted, there would be no power for a court to recommend for deportation a Commonwealth citizen whose father or mother was horn in the United Kingdom. The proposition that one cannot deport X because his father was born in the United Kingdom but can deport Y although his mother was born in the United Kingdom is not easy to defend. I do not see any logic in it, and it seems to reveal a kind of anti-feminist disposition which the Minister of State will find somewhat difficult to defend. It might even be regarded as being out of character.
I suppose that the reasoning behind the exemptions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) is that it is felt that when a man is convicted of an offence, and has certain close connections with the United Kingdom, to deport him might involve disproportionate hardship, and might, in certain cases, put an obstacle in the way of his rehabilitation and of the best treatment of him as a prisoner.
There is a good deal of sense in that reasoning. If one has a conviction, but has close connections and family ties in the United Kingdom, to be made subject to a deportation order might obviously


have the most undesirable anti-social consequences but, if that is the reasoning, I believe that the Minister would be very hard put to it to persuade the Committee that having a father born in the United Kingdom brings a relevant factor into play but that having a mother born in the United Kingdom does not. With those considerations in mind, I recommend the Amendment to the Committee.

Mr. John Diamond: I ask the Government, when replying to the Amendment so forcefully moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), to explain, at the same time, why more importance is attached to ordinary residence than to birth.
In the very next line of paragraph (a) there are the words:
…or whose parents (or either of them) were ordinarily resident…
I have always regarded "British born" as two proud words, and have always thought that one can normally rely on a British-born person to carry out the British way of life and to be loyal to his or her country.
Under the Bill as it stands, if the father was ordinarily resident, that is an exception, and if the mother was ordinarily resident, that is an exception. How does it arise that for a mother to be ordinarily resident is an exception, but for a mother to be British born is no exception at all and does not have the same validity?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out, the deportation provisions of the Bill are less controversial than the earlier ones, but it is, nevertheless, right that we should make sure that those deportation provisions, the essence of which are, I think, the exemptions which they contain, are as they should be. The Clause, of course, must be considered in conjunction with Clause 7 (2), which provides for exemptions from deportation after five years' residence in this country.
The purpose of Clause 6 is to define the people who may be regarded as belonging to the United Kingdom, and who are, therefore, not to be put in peril of deportation even though they commit

criminal offences. The Amendment would exempt a person from liability to deportation if either of the parents were born in the United Kingdom, whereas, as drafted, the Bill exempts those whose father was born here but not those whose mother was born here. I am invited to defend that proposition.
We have done this because the United Kingdom is in a special position, in that many people born in the Commonwealth have fathers born in the United Kingdom. Those people born in the Commonwealth of fathers born in the United Kingdom very frequently remain closely connected with the United Kingdom, and regard it as home. There is, therefore, no question but that we should exempt them from deportation. I might say that in exempting them we have followed the analogy of the law of citizenship, under which a person born abroad of a father born in the United Kingdom inherits the father's citizenship, while a person whose mother was born here does not inherit the mother's citizenship.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example. If an Englishman takes a post in Canada and his son is born there and returns to the United Kingdom, he is likely to have retained such a close connection with the United Kingdom as to regard it as his family's home. But this is surely not so likely to happen in the case of an English woman who goes to Canada and marries a Canadian. Their son, born in Canada, is more likely to regard Canada as his home and if he comes here he will not, naturally and obviously——

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Why?

Mr. Renton: I am just explaining what we believe to be the most general experience.
It is a matter of experience and common sense. If the son is born in Canada to an English woman who has gone there to marry a Canadian, he is more likely to regard that as his home and if he comes here we do not think that he will naturally fall into the category of those who belong to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) pointed out that under the Clause we have exempted


a person either of whose parents were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, even though he was not born in the United Kingdom. This exemption is on a different footing from the one we are discussing now, because if either of the parents was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth then, whether he was born in the Commonwealth or in a foreign country, he can properly be regarded as belonging to the United Kingdom. It means, in effect, that he was born abroad when his mother—a United Kingdom resident—was temporarily abroad. We feel that it is right, in such a case, that he should have the benefit of this exemption.
In general, we feel that it is right, in the Clause, to follow our nationality law and be consistent with it by granting exemption to those whose fathers were born here and to acknowledge the principle that children of those ordinarily resident here should also be exempted. For reasons I have given, however, we feel that if only the mother was born here and was not ordinarily resident here at the time of the birth of the person concerned, then no entitlement to exemption should arise.
If those who may still, in spite of that explanation, feel uneasy about this point I would mention two facts. First, as I mentioned earlier, under Clause 7 (2)—when we come to discuss that—anyone who has been ordinarily resident here for five years will, in any case, get exemption under that provision. Secondly, no court is bound to recommend deportation—even though the person would qualify for it—and even if the court recommends deportation it is still within the discretion of the Home Secretary as to whether or not a deportation order should be made.
Thus, if in any case of a person whose mother was born here there would seem to be great hardship involved in carrying out the deportation order, the Home Secretary is at liberty to decide that it shall not be carried out.

Mr. Diamond: rose——

Mr. Renton: The Bill as drafted is right in principle and is consistent with our nationality law. In practice, no hardship is likely to arise, for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Diamond: I wish to question the hon. and learned Gentleman about the earlier part of his speech—not the latter part where he gave reasons for accepting the Amendment—in which he attempted to reject the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman advanced the proposition that this was a rather general matter of experience, that one would have loyalty towards one's country despite the fact that one's father had moved to another country but that the same argument could not apply in the case of one's mother.
Even assuming that the hon. and learned Gentleman has any evidence for that—and I deny that he has—and even assuming that in two-thirds of the cases that might be so, is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously arguing that we should put, as part of our permanent statutory law, that the other one-third of the cases should suffer injustice because it is a patriarchy and not a matriarchy that we are subscribing to?

Mr. Renton: Nothing I have said was intended to be in support of the Amendment. The provision in the Clause is based, as I mentioned, and as are many of our other laws, on the husband being the head of the family. That is why the children normally follow the husband's nationality. It is on that basis—and a basis which I think is accepted in most countries of the Commonwealth—that we have framed this provision.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister has completely failed to give the Committee an adequate explanation for rejecting the Amendment. All he has done is to argue a precedent in relation to the nationality laws. It is well known that those laws discriminate unfairly as between husband and wife. Because they do—and because of this legal fiction that the husband is the head of the family—that does not seem to be any justification for arguing, in the circumstances of a Bill in which we are making a breach with Commonwealth tradition, that the person whose mother was born in Britain and whose father was not should be discriminated against.
I should have thought that evidence could have been brought to suggest that someone whose mother was born in Britain—and I am using the fictitious


person adduced by the Minister whose father had gone to Canada—could be regarded just as enthusiastically as a citizen of this country—as much as if the case were the other way round and the father had been born in the United Kingdom.
5.15 p.m.
It is often through the mother that the greatest emotion is attached to the country of origin. As I say, this provision is discriminatory. It is unjust as between husband and wife and the Minister has done nothing more than adduce some legal precedents to qualify what he has said. Apart from that, his whole philosophy has been based on the philosophy of St. Paul.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: While congratulating the Minister on his ingenious speculations on what might be the primary loyalties of ladies living in Canada, I also congratulate him on being perfectly frank in giving us the real motive for the Government's resistance to the Amendment—the fact that they still support that utterly outdated principle of the nationality law which lays down that a woman cannot give hey nationality to her child.
It is extremely interesting to note that the party opposite—which resisted feminine emancipation over the years on the ground that women were second-rate citizens—should, by the Bill, set up the principle of second-rate citizenship. It represents their outrageous and outdated attitude of renewing something which should have been taken off the Statute Book long ago, and I hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. W. Griffiths: In resisting the Amendment the Minister made an astonishing statement, not about the nationality laws but about what he called their "general experience". Presumably the Home Office—by its common sense or otherwise—was persuaded that a woman born in this country and married to a man who was not a United Kingdom citizen was less likely to retain her ties with this country than had the case been reversed.
The Minister did not advance a scrap of evidence to support that astonishing and rather insulting assumption. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman made that

statement after working on the grossly offensive assumption that women who marry men from outside these shores do not retain very close ties with their relatives and friends in this country. In its treatment of Commonwealth citizens in the past, the Home Office has worked not in a commonsense way but in a nonsensical fashion.
I recall approaching the Home Office once about whether it would agree to admitting a man who was born in Gibraltar and who had married a Spanish girl. The answer I got was, "Yes, they can live in the United Kingdom." But the Home Office did not consider that the same treatment would apply had the circumstances been reversed. A girl born in Gibraltar, and marrying a Spaniard, would be refused admission. The Minister of State's speech does not seem to me to be remotely connected with common sense. It is as nonsensical as the way the Government have treated people who have sought to come here in the past in circumstances which I have related earlier in the debate.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment. This is a very harsh Bill which discriminates against certain people belonging to the United Kingdom. The Government ought to ease as much as possible the effect of the Bill on such people.
I am surprised that the Minister of State has not accepted the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) on this issue. Why should a woman not be considered equal in the marriage partnership? Why should offspring be discriminated against because one parent happened to be born in this country and the other born somewhere else in the Commonwealth? Reference has been made to Canada, but I am not satisfied that that is the problem country. I think it is the African countries, the coloured countries, which are behind the objection to this Amendment. Had only the white races been involved, I do not think we should have had objections from the Government on such an issue.
If an English woman marries someone from the Continent of Europe and they


go to live in one of our Commonwealth countries where they both die, the child of the marriage may well wish to come to this country where the mother was born, and yet will be refused admission to this country. It is all very well the Minister saying that the Government will have the right to allow such persons to come here, but I feel certain that that right will not always be exercised and that the Government will not always allow such people to stay in this country.
The Minister did not say anything about the natural parents. I should like to know whether a person who is born in another country of a natural parent of this country, will be allowed to come here.
The Government ought to take another look at this Clause. If they cannot accept the Amendment, they ought at least to take it into consideration and to rewrite the subsection to conform with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Ede: The Minister of State quoted the British Nationality Act. I would remind him that there is a great difference between that Act and this Bill. That Act was the result of prolonged negotiations with every one of the countries which obtained the right of separate citizenship under it. This Bill, so far as we know, has not such a basis and we have had to accept some things that we did not like very much.
I am astounded that the Minister of State should advance the proposition which he has. It reminds me of the somewhat amusing incident in another place when Lord Woolton once said in the course of a debate that maternity was certain but paternity was often doubtful. My noble Friend, who was alive in those days, the first, and I sincerely hope the last, Viscount Stansgate, said that it was an astounding doctrine to announce in an hereditary House.
This is not an hereditary House, but we are entitled to take account of the ordinary customs of the people, and surely it is the recollection of everybody in the House who served in the British Army in either of the great wars that the person given as the next of kin in every case where the mother survives is the mother. I do not believe that

women born in this country who marry members of the Dominions or members of other countries in the Commonwealth which have recently attained nationhood are less likely to leave a love of this country in the minds of their offspring than the fathers are.

Mr. Renton: Naturally one is interested, as one always is, in the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who introduced the British Nationality Act, 1948. So far as I recollect, when we introduced the British Nationality Act, 1958, which made certain amendments and extensions to the 1948 Act and filled in one or two gaps in it, there was no suggestion that we should alter Section 5 of the 1948 Act which reads:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
We have also had prolonged consultations on this Bill, and, although we have received numerous representations about various parts of it, we have not received any suggestions that this Clause should be any different from what it is.
The right hon. Member for South Shields made an entertaining allusion to the certainty of maternity and the uncertainty of paternity. I do not know what inference we are to draw from that. His statement is a defence of the ancient custom of Borough English which was contrary to the law of primogeniture. It was also, I think, a justification for the view that, if anything, it is only descent from the mother that should be acknowledged in the Bill.
We have preferred to follow the provision put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in 1948 and carried by the House, to the effect that citizenship status should follow the father, and we feel that in the context of this provision that is the right thing to do.
There is no Amendment before us to amend the British Natonality Act. Indeed, I think that would be a most highly controversial thing to do. We have stuck to the right hon. Gentleman's Statute and, in those circumstances, I feel that this provision is as it should be.
May I conclude by reminding the Committee that although this undoubtedly seems to be the right provision from the legal and constitutional point of view, there is this safeguard against any hardship, that a person who has been ordinarily resident here for five years will in any event get exemption under Clause 7, and both the courts and the Home Secretary have a discretion

to exercise in these matters which they will exercise, bearing in mind all the circumstances, including such circumstances as may arise from the fact that the mother of the accused was born in the United Kingdom.

Question put, That "whose father" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 192.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith


Aitken, W. T.
de Ferranti, Basil
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Allason, James
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Ashton, Sir Hubert
du Cann, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Eden, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leather, E. H. C.


Barter, John
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.


Batsford, Brian
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, Gilmour


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Berkeley, Humphry
Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bingham, R. M.
Freeth, Denzil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Stephen


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bossom, Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gilmour, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Box, Donald
Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
McMatter, Stanley R.


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)


Brewis, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Brooman-White, R.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Sir John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Buck, Antony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas


Bullard, Denys
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hay, John
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hendry, Forbes
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mills, Stratton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hobson, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cole, Norman
Hornby, R. P.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Collard, Richard
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooke, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.


Coulson, Michael
James, David
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pee[...], John


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peyton, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dance, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitman, Sir James




Pitt, Miss Edith
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pott, Percivall
Sheet, T. H. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Prior, J. M. L.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walder, David


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Speir, Rupert
Walker, Peter


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Pym, Francis
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stodart, J, A.
Ward, Dame Irene


Ramsden, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Rawlinson, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry
Webster, David


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees, Hugh
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, William


Rees-Davies, W. R,
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Renton, David
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Teeling, Sir William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Wise, A. R.


Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Ropnor, Col. Sir Leonard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Woollam, John


Russell, Ronald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Turner, Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Seymour, Leslie
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Sharples, Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward


Albu, Austen
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Monslow, Walter


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Awbery, Stan
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, John


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mort, D. L.


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Neal, Harold


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Benson, Sir George
Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby S.)


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver, G. H.


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holt, Arthur
Padley, W. E.


Bowles, Frank
Hoy, James H.
Paget, R. T.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Peart, Frederick


Callaghan, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George
Prentice, R. E.


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crosland, Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Darling, George
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reld, William


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dodds, Norman
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Donnelly, Desmond
King, Dr. Horace
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Short, Edward


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, Julian


Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mapp, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Richard
Steele, Thomas


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Stones, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.
Swain, Thomas







Symonds, J. B.
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Warbey, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Watkins, Tudor
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, Robert


Thornton, Ernest
Whitlock, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Timmons, John
Willey, Frederick
Zilliacus, K.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wade, Donald
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end to insert:
(b) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
This Amendment was put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself largely in order that we might ventilate the whole question of the principle of deportation and the extent to which it ought to be allowed to go in the Bill. It will, of course, be appreciated that deportation really has nothing whatever to do with the control of immigration at all. It is an entirely separate subject. We can have complete control of immigration without having any provisions in the Bill about deportation. If we merely want to prevent the people coming here who will be excluded by the Bill, we do that by Part I of the Bill. We do not want any of the provisions of Part II with regard to deportation for that purpose. In other words, we should be quite clear that the provisions about deportation are no necessary corollary of what we are doing to control immigration. It does not mean that they cannot be justified, but they have to be justified separately and independently of any reason given for the control of immigration.
Deportation is a penalty. Until comparatively recently it was unknown in our penal code. Even aliens, as far as I recall, could not be deported before the Aliens Act of 1914. They might have been liable to extradition under some of the extradition treaties, but that is a separate matter. We are now introducing this principle of deportation of Commonwealth citizens, and I think it is pertinent to remind the Committee of what the Home Secretary said on this part of the subject when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, because it rather supports what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was saying earlier about the pressures to which the Government were subjected by the Conservative conference which led them to introduce this Bill at all. In

fact, the Home Secretary admitted as much, because on Second Reading he said:
I should like now to deal shortly with Part II of the Bill…we have long been pressed to introduce measures to authorise the deportation of immigrants from the Commonwealth who offend against our laws…"—[OFFICIAL RETORT 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 702.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, in the ordinary way, the Government would not have introduced any measures to deport immigrants from the Commonwealth, but that as they were going to introduce a Bill to control immigration they thought it would be convenient at the same time to ask for powers to deport offenders. That being so, we have to consider what, if any, classes of people should be subject to deportation.
It is conceded in the Bill as it stands that certain classes or categories of Commonwealth citizens should not be liable to deportation in any circumstance. The object of this Amendment is also to exclude from the penalty and terror of deportation any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It will be observed, of course, that the provisions with regard to deportation do not apply merely to new immigrants who will come into the country after the Bill becomes an Act. They will operate as soon as the Bill is passed on immigrants already here. I am not sure that that is a principle that can be defended.
Deportation will result from conviction for some criminal offence, and it will be part of the punishment, but it will, of course, be particularly severe in many cases, a particularly savage form of punishment, and it has to be justified as such. Advocates of the most modern system of penology and criminal reform take the view, quite rightly I think, that one of the chief objects of the criminal law should be to reform an offender. Various different types of prisons and places of detention have been introduced


in recent years in order to provide a variety of methods of dealing with criminal offenders.
5.45 p.m.
It will be observed that if we deport an offender it puts out of our power any possibility of reforming him after he quits the country. Deportation, therefore, is analogous to transportation. The Attorney-General laughs, but surely if an Australian citizen comes to this country and commits an offence and is recommended for deportation, he might well regard it as transportation. I should have thought that it was only a question of the use of words. However, be that as it may, deportation removes the person deported from any reforming element in the criminal law. The reason why we think that citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies should be exempted from deportation is that, as we argued on Clause 1, we think that they are in a special category.
Be it observed that since the Act of 1948, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible, citizens of the Colonies have for numerous purposes, if not all, been equated with citizens of the United Kingdom. They are distinguished from all other British subjects who may be citizens of a self-governing dominion or of a nation which has attained self-government. They are distinguished from all these British subjects because they either live in the United Kingdom or in a part of the Commonwealth which has not attained self-government and for which this Parliament has supreme ultimate responsibility, including, I should have thought, the responsibility, if they be criminals, to use the resources of the criminal law for reforming them. That is a responsibility which cannot be discharged if we deport them.
I should have thought, therefore, that on that ground alone this Amendment had substance. But I think that it has even greater substance, because we are still anxious in the Bill, with all the inroads that it is making into the stability and coherence of the Commonwealth and with all these limitations, to preserve as much as we can of the fabric of the Commonwealth and to identify with the Motherland those British subjects from overseas who are not members of any self-governing community and who, therefore, have special ties with

the United Kingdom. For all these reasons, and, I have no doubt, for those which my hon. Friends may advance, I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I recognise that in the next following Clause there are limitations upon the right of deportation which take away some of the more extreme disadvantages of the Clause we are now considering. I recognise also that, when we come to that Clause, there may be an opportunity to amend it so as to remove some categories out of the ambit of the right to deport. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee should be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and those who acted with him in putting down this Amendment as a challenge to the whole principle of applying deportation even for criminal offences to members of the family. That is really the effect of it.
If one were to concede the case for the Bill at all, and I certainly do not do that, it would be a case for limiting and controlling immigration. Once a person has been exempted from that restriction, however, once it has been decided that his right as a British subject is not to be limited as the rights of other British subjects are limited by the general operation of the Bill, then, I suggest, it is wrong in principle, once the person is here, once we have let him in not as an alien but as a British citizen, to impose upon him criminal sanctions which are not applied to his fellow citizens.
People may take more liberal or progressive views even about aliens than are commonly accepted. Nevertheless, I think it would be universally conceded that the question is quite different when one is dealing with aliens who never had under our laws the right to come at all. In this Bill we are not dealing with aliens. A great deal of the discussion on some of the Amendments has been bedevilled and perverted by a tacit assumption—which I invite the Committee not to make—that whatever has been considered proper in respect of aliens one is entitled to do also in respect of British subjects. That is not a principle which anyone accepts. For those who are born here or are citizens of the United Kingdom here, it is a long


time since we exercised the right to expel, exile or, as my hon. Friend said, transport them for criminal offences. We do not do it any more. The question raised by the Amendment is whether we should apply to British subjects whose right to come here and live among us we have accepted, even under the limitations of the Bill, a power of exile which we do not exercise in respect of other citizens.
I feel certain that this is one of the provisions of the Bill which are there only because of the hasty and ill-considered manner in which it was put together and presented to the House. Under the Amendment which the Committee has just accepted, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, unless the House otherwise determines all these powers will come to an end about 18 months from the time when the Bill becomes operative as a Statute. Is it worth while for 18 months to introduce so fundamental a discrimination between one British subject and another both of whom have the right to come here?

Mr. Fletcher: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that the position is rather worse than he fancies. As I understand it, it is only Part I of the Bill which, by virtue of the Amendment to Clause 5 we have just passed, will come to an end next year. Part II will be permanent.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that. I was wrong, and my error might have led me into ignoring or making light of what is one of the most serious aspects of the Clause as it stands, namely, that it will apply to Commonwealth citizens already here before the Bill was thought of. This seems to be a very serious extension, and it adds reinforcement to the argument I was addressing to the Committee.
I do not want to take a great deal of time on this. It is the sort of question on which people make up their minds almost instinctively when the proposition is put to them. There is the kind of mind which would instinctively say, "Here is someone who has done something wrong, who has offended us, who has hurt us or damaged us, someone who

has abused our hospitality. Let us consider what revenge we may exercise upon him". To that type of mind the provision which we seek to amend will not seem very harmful. There is another type of mind which goes instinctively the other way, "Here is someone who belongs to us, someone like us, living within the ambit not merely of our laws but of our way of life, our social circumstances, our conditions, our housing, our education, our employment and our economic surroundings, who has found himself in conflict with the law". I think that most of us would feel that it would be quite wrong in those cases to discriminate between one British subject and other so as to apply a further and rather cruel penalty in addition to the penalties which he already has incurred and which have rightly been exacted from him merely because he is a British subject who derives his citizenship in a way other than the way in which the rest of us have done.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter again very carefully. Do we really want this provision? Do we want to reintroduce this power of transportation in respect of one limited class of potential offenders? By retaining it, will not the Government declare again that they are willing to slip further and further down a slippery slope the end of which will be the undermining of all the things which have made British citizenship something uniquely valuable in the world?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I feel that I should claim the indulgence of the Committee on this my first attempt at the Box on the Bill.
I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is to include among those who are defined—or whose definition as such is attempted—by subsection (2) as belonging to the United Kingdom all those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This, of course, would be an extremely wide extension. The Amendment would make it impossible for any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be deported however recently he had come to this country and whatever crime he might have committed.
At an earlier stage of our discussions, an attempt was made, but was rejected by the Committee, to draw a distinction between the treatment of those who came from the self-governing Dominions and those who came from the Colonies. The distinction was rejected. This is another attempt to introduce it.
6.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) attempts to get away from that decision by saying that Part II has nothing to do with Part I. That is not true, because it is possible for a conviction and subsequent deportation to take place under Part II for offences committed under Part I. There is, therefore, no dichotomy between the two parts such as the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) attempted to draw. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, "Once you have let a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in, you should not be able to deport him". But, among other examples, there are those who have been let in subject to conditions. If they break those conditions—the Committee has already pronounced on the conditions—that is a breach of Part I and an offence which might subsequently lead to a conviction and a recommendation for deportation. Furthermore, from the practical point of view, if we exclude from deportation all those who have been admitted, it would inevitably follow, I fear, that in cases of doubt fewer people would be admitted than we hoped to see admitted because there would subsequently be no power to deport them.
We have no intention in the Bill to disturb the arrangement that there is a common citizenship between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. But the effect of subsection (2) is that those who belong to the United Kingdom by birth, parentage, naturalisation or marriage cannot be deported. and we cannot discriminate between those who come from the Colonies and those who come from self-governing Dominions if only because there comes a time when those who are here from what were Colonies find themselves, while they are here or even in passage to this country, coming from Colonies which have meanwhile achieved independence.
As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, among others, said, there are tremendous safeguards under Clause 7 against deportation. It is to be used only in the most extreme circumstances. It is subject to all sorts of safeguards and discretions, and, of course, no one who has been here for five years can be deported. We are, therefore, dealing only with people who have fairly recently arrived and with those who have abused our hospitality by committing serious criminal offences.
The power to deport has been taken by most of the Colonies. They take and retain the power to deport citizens of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies. Our measures are, if anything, more liberal than theirs in many cases. They are certainly more liberal than those of some Colonies dealing with aliens. It will not be possible to deport a Commonwealth citizen except on the recommendation of a court; and there is the five years exemption. The powers of Colonies in relation to aliens are much wider than the ones we propose.
I must deal with a point which was made by the hon. Member for Islington, East. This is not transportation. Transportation is sending an offender to a country where he has never lived before. It is a question of sending him to a wild, inhospitable and hostile environment with which he has had no connection. Deportation is a matter of sending an offender back to his own people where he has at least as good a chance of reformation as he has here.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wish to touch on two points arising out of the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
The first thing that he said which I found somewhat fantastic was this. The constitutional theory which he put forward was that it would not be possible to differentiate between people who come from the Colonies and people who come from the Commonwealth on the ground that some constitutional change might take place after they arrive. This is a problem which, I think, has been rather unnaturally inflated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, rather as if a Colony will achieve independence while an immigrant is on the high seas or is in transit to this country. I should have thought that it followed that the status of a person would change if he were in


this country in the same way that the diplomatic status of a Colony changes on the grant of independence. Colonial development and welfare loans and many other Acts of Parliament passed by the House of Commons are such that their operation alters when and in so far as a territory achieves independence.
The point of the Amendment is that, while those people have colonial status, we have a special responsibility for them in the economic sense. Therefore, they should have greater rights in earning their livelihood in this country than those who belong to the independent Commonwealth. It is ludicrous for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say that it is impossible to make a distinction between the two. There is a vesting date on which a country achieves independence. That means that it ceases to be represented at the Colonial Office, ceases to qualify for colonial development and welfare loans, and its people cease to qualify for exemption under this Clause if the Amendment is passed. To say that this change can operate for at least nine statutory purposes but not for the purpose of this Bill is very difficult to swallow.
I found somewhat sinister the Joint Under-Secretary of State's suggestion that, if the Amendment were carried, fewer people would probably come into this country——

Mr. S. Silverman: Be allowed into this country.

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, be allowed into this country, by the immigration officers. The implication was that the Home Office and, in the hon. and learned Member's view, the immigration officers are likely to regard this Clause as a useful safety measure for repairing their errors of judgment as applied to intending immigrants That is a recognition of the fallibility of human judgment, and it therefore makes it all the more difficult to accept the Attorney-General's argument that no appeal is needed save to the Home Office. That was an extremely sinister implication in the argument.

I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to think again about this idea that it is constitutionally impossible to differentiate between colonial people and people who are members of the independent Commonwealth. We have succeeded in doing that in at least nine Acts of Parliament, and I do not see why this difference should cause any difficulty at all.

Mr. Fletcher: Apart from the reasons given by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), another serious objection to the Bill as drafted is its retrospective character. I appreciate that there are safeguards in Clause 7, but we always find members of the Conservative Party holding up their hands in horror at any thought of retrospective legislation. But this is retrospective legislation of the worst kind, because it is in a Bill dealing with criminal matters. Retrospective legislation may be justified in connection with fiscal matters and has been justified in fiscal legislation introduced by both parties. But legislation of a retrospective character in a criminal sense has always been abhorrent in our jurisprudence. That is what the Bill as drafted is, and that is why we want to limit its effect.
As has been pointed out, immigrants who have been here for even up to five years will still be liable to deportation under the Bill. They came here under a system of jurisprudence, a system of criminal law, which they understood and which they thought was the system of a civilised country. They knew that we had certain criminal laws and a certain system of punishment. They knew that people could be sent to prison. But there was no provision for deportation. People who have lived here for five years will under the Bill become retrospectively liable to these sanctions. This is another reason why I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 179, Noes, 246.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)


Ainsley, William
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, Cyril


Albu, Aust[...]n
Awbery, Stan
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)




Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cronin, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Skeffington, Arthur


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, George
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dodds, Norman
Mclnnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Evans, Albert
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Symonds, J. B.


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thorpe, Jeremy


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Wade, Donald


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Monslow Walter
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, Charles
Mart, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Healey, Denis
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman





NOES


Allason, James
Brooman-White, R.
Corfield, F. V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Critchley, Julian


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bryan, Paul
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Atkins, Humphrey
Buck, Antony
Cumin, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Billiard, Denys
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
de Ferranti, Basil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Burden, F. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Donaldson Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bell, Ronald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Doughty, Charles


Berkeley, Humphry
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drayson, G. B.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Sir James


Biffen, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Eden, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bingham, R. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-uponTyne, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bossom, dive
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cleaver, Leonard
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Box, Donald
Cole, Norman
Farr, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Collard, Richard
Finlay, Graeme


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)







Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Renton, David


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ridsdale, Julian


Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Gilmour, Sir John
McAdden, Stephen
Robson Brown, Sir William


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Gough, Frederick
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Russell, Ronald


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Seymour, Leslie


Green, Alan
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sharples, Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Shaw, M.


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maginnis, John E.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maitland, Sir John
Speir, Rupert


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stodart, J. A.


Heard, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Marshall, Douglas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hiley, Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus
Teeling, Sir William


Hirst, Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


Hobson, John
Morrison, John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hocking, Philip N.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Gerald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hollingworth, John
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Turner, Colin


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jackson, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


James, David
Partridge, E.
Walder, David


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, John
Wall, Patrick


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Dame Irene


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitman, Sir James
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pitt, Miss Edith
Webster, David


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pott, Percivall
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Price, David (Eastlcigh)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kirk, Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wise, A. R.


Leather, E. H. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Leavey, J. A.
Pym, Francis
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Leburn, Gilmour
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, James
Worsley, Marcus


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. Whitelaw and


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rees, Hugh
Mr. Gordon Campbell.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): With the next Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), we can also discuss, although it will not be called for a Division, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 5, line 37, at the end to insert:
(d) a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:

(c) a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one: or
(d) a spouse or child, stepchild, or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years, of a person of a description specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends, and I shall do so very briefly because whatever may be said or done about it depends upon the answer forthcoming from the Government.
By subsection (2) of this Clause certain persons are exempt from this liability to


deportation. They include, for example, a person born in the United Kingdom or a person whose father was born in the United Kingdom, and there are others who are exempt from the liability. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the exemption to a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 1st November, 1961, and to the spouse, child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of 21 of anyone who is exempt under this subsection.
Let me give an example. An immigrant may come into this country with his wife and family; if one of his children were to commit an offence for which he would be liable to imprisonment, such child might be deported unless this Amendment were introduced. I am, of course, aware that by Clause 7 he would not be liable to be deported if under the age of 17, but I suggest that to take a child between the age of 17 and 21 away from his family and deport him would be unduly hard, and that unless a provision such as this is inserted in the Bill that might take place.
On Clause 1, I moved an Amendment to clarify the definition of those who would be entitled to come into the country; that was When we were discussing immigration into the country. I advocated the inclusion of the wife, the spouse and children. At that time the Minister of State objected to the wording of my Amendment. He did me the courtesy of writing to me afterwards explaining. He undertook to introduce an Amendment on Clause 2. In due course that Amendment was introduced, defining more clearly those persons who are entitled to come in with an immigrant, in particular his wife and family.
When moving that Government Amendment yesterday the Home Secretary used these words:
A desire has been expressed, on both sides of the Committee, that our intentions in these matters should be made clear in the terms of the Bill and should not be left to be framed in administrative instructions to immigration officers. Although it was not our original idea in drafting the Bill, the Amendments have been put down with a view to meeting the wishes of the Committee in our previous discussions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 318.]
In due course, that Amendment was approved.
I recognise that there is some difference between the wording of that Government Amendment to Clause 2 and the wording of the Amendment that I am now moving, but in substance they are the same, and I suggest to the Committee that if we are to have a definition in Clause 2 of those who may come into the country, we should have a somewhat similar definition in this Clause dealing with those who are liable to be deported. If it is true, as the Home Secretary said, that we should have this incorporated in the Bill, and not left to instructions to immigration officers, it seems to me that there is an almost stronger case for writing into the Bill some clarification of the class of persons liable to deportation under this Clause.
I should like to make it clear that I am not opposed to deportation in all circumstances. My own view is that the principle contained in subsection (1) is not in itself objectionable. I am well aware that there is a small minority of immigrants who come into this country who act in such a way that they deserve punishment and do very great harm to the great majority of their fellow citizens, and I believe there are circumstances in which the proper course is to deport, but I think we should exercise great care in deciding to what classes this new provision should apply.
It may be that the Government have a satisfactory answer; I hope so. I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if the Government intend to introduce an Amendment similar to that which was introduced to Clause 2; but, if not, it will be necessary to press this further. However, I shall not pursue my argument at the moment, because I am anxious to know the intentions of the Government.

Mr. J. Grimond: I want very briefly to support what has been so eloquently said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I do not want to go over again all that he has said, but I want to emphasise this point, that it is quite obviously vital, if we are to have these provisions for deportation of a class of people which has not been liable to it before, that we really should define it and confine it as strictly as we possibly can. Like my hon. Friend, I do not entirely rule out the possibility


that in certain limited cases it may be desirable, but again, like, I am certain, hon. Members who spoke on the previous Amendment, I am personally very much biassed in favour of trying to retain these people in the community, even though they may have transgressed against our laws. That being so, I would urge the Government to think very carefully about the position of children, even if over 17, and certainly of a spouse.
Further, there is in our Amendment the question of the person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 1st November, 1961, and the reason for that, I think, is very obvious and must, I should have thought, commend itself widely in the Committee. It is simply that we do not want retrospective legislation. We do not want to put people already in the country when this Bill was first introduced into a new position before the law. I cannot think that any great damage would be done to the wellbeing of the country by accepting this Amendment, and I should have thought that the reasons for the Amendment would have commended themselves to the Government.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I understand very well the purposes of the Liberal Amendment. The effect of the first part of it would be that no one who was ordinarily resident here on 1st November, 1961, could be deported. If the deportation provisions of the Bill are acceptable in principle, as I understand they are, at least to the Liberal Party, then it is hard to see why anyone should be exempt from them merely because he arrived here before the Bill was introduced. The element of retrospection surely applies only if the conviction was before the Bill received the Royal Assent. And he can be recommended for deportation only if convicted after Part II of the Bill has come into force.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: What about the element of retrospection if the offence were committed before the Bill was introduced?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. That, with respect, is a much more powerful argument than that merely of arrival in this

country. Although there are always two opinions about what is or what is not retrospection, whether in fiscal or other matters, nevertheless, it is undesirable in penal matters in case of doubt to come down on the wrong side of wherever the line should be drawn.
I should like to look at that point again because if the crime was committed—not the question of residence or of coming into the country which I do not regard as retrospection, but the actual commission of the crime before the Bill has become an Act—I concede that that case might be looked at as retrospection, and I will look at the point again.

Mr. S. Silverman: While not dissenting in the least from what has been said about offences committed before, is there not a great deal more in the other point than the Under-Secretary has conceded? Is there not an anomaly in drawing this distinction which, if the hon. Gentleman does not accept something like the spirit of the Amendment, he will be drawing? We should be saying that whereas we will not seek to exclude from entering into the country certain persons in certain situations, nevertheless we will enact the right to deport them if they are already here. Is it possible to justify that kind of distinction?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I think it is. Once the Bill is law, if they subsequently commit a crime and are convicted they are in peril of deportation. I do not regard that as retrospection, but if they have already committed a crime, whether before or after the introduction of the Bill, it is arguable that that is retrospection. I go no further, though I think that is going a long way.
I am afraid that I cannot give satisfaction on the second part of the Amendment. The proposal to include the new paragraph (d) would exempt from deportation wives, husbands, or children under 21 of persons already exempt, and without the Amendment the Bill already gives the possibility of exemption from deportation to wives and to children under 17 inasmuch as no-one under 17 can be recommended for deportation under Clause 7 (1).
Exemption for wives is in accordance with the general expectation that she will acquire her husband's domicile, but


it seems unreasonable that a man who does not belong to the United Kingdom, which is the test applied, should be totally exempt from deportation merely because he married a woman born in the United Kingdom, or whose father was born here, and who might never have been in the United Kingdom except at birth, or who was only a "belonger" because her father was born here. In deciding whether there should be deportation or there should be an order, the court or the Home Secretary would have regard to the hardship that might be caused to the wife if her husband were deported in certain types of cases. But where, for example, the partners are estranged it seems unreasonable that a deportation order should not be made against the husband.
As for the children, there is a dispute about the age between 17 and 21. If the family are all living here it is most unlikely that if the parents are exempt the children in practice would not be. In such an unlikely case of children not being exempted by discretion of the Home Secretary he would be very reluctant to make a deportation order. But the Amendment says nothing about the domicile of the parents and to take an extreme case there might well be young persons between 17 and 21 who, in the terms of the Amendment were children of such persons as are in the earlier subsections, but those parents might not be here at all.
To take another extreme case, an immigrant born in Canada of a mother born in the United Kingdom leaves Canada and comes here at the age of 18 and commits a serious crime. It would seem absurd to be able to exempt him from deportation merely because his mother happened to have been born here but had gone to Canada many years ago. I ask the Committee to rely on the Home Secretary's discretion that where there is a genuine close family tie he would be obviously very reluctant to break that tie, even though the offender, and it would have to be a serious offence, who was over 17, was otherwise liable to deportation. But where the offender is on his own and has committed a serious crime and his only claim to exemption is his parenthood, I do not see why he should be exempt and

for these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: The debate has had one desirable result. We have extracted from the Government an assurance that they will consider the point which has emerged about retrospection. It seems to me clear that it would be retrospective legislation of the worst character if anybody in respect of an offence committed before the Bill was enacted should in any circumstance become liable to be deported, because that, in effect, would be imposing a sanction or penalty of a totally different order from that recognised by the law of the land at the time when the offence was committed. That is retrospective legislation of a penal kind of the worst character.
As I understand, we have had an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the Bill will be redrafted in order that it cannot be open to any possibility of construction that would permit such a retrospective result.
So far so good. I fully support the arguments advanced from the Liberal benches. I thought that the Under-Secretary's reply to the main subject was disappointing, and I hope that the Amendment will be supported in the Lobby.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am a little shocked to see that representatives of the Home Office are apparently incapable of appreciating what an anomalous situation they are creating by means of the Clause and by their quite incomprehensibly rigid reaction to the argument presented by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and others. I should have thought it anomalous to the point of being ridiculous to say that a man already established here before this monstrosity was conceived should have less rights than if he were an intending immigrant after the Bill became law.
That is the effect of the Amendment which the Home Secretary moved. If it is limited to Part I of the Measure, and if one refuses to make the same limitation or provide the same safeguard when dealing with Part II, it means that the established British citizen who is a resident here can be deported when in precisely the same circumstances, or very nearly so, he would be admitted under Part I.
I cannot understand, except on the assumption that nobody has taken any


real trouble to examine this, why the Home Office commits itself to so utterly ridiculous a situation.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 240, Noes 177.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[6.41 p.m.


Allason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Mills, Stratton


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, William


Batsford, Brian
Gough, Frederick
Morrison, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Nabarro, Gerald


Bell, Ronald
Green, Alan
Neave, Airey


Berkeley, Humphry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gurden, Harold
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bossom, Clive
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hendry, Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Box, Donald
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bromley, Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James


Brooman-White, R.
Hobson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pott, Percivall


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hollingworth, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Buck, Antony
Hopkins Alan
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bullard, Denys
Hornby, R. P.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Burden, F. A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pym, Francis


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Channon, H. P. G.
Jackson, John
Rees, Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Cole, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Collard, Richard
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooke, Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Critchley, Julian
Leather, E. H. C.
Seymour, Leslie


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Leavey, J. A.
Sharples, Richard


Curran, Charles
Leburn Gilmour
Shaw, M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Deedes, W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


de Ferranti, Basil
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, Rupert


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stodart, J. A.


Eden, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Stephen
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliott, R. W. (Newcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Turner, Colin


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Freeth, Denzil
Marshall, Douglas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, B. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)




Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Webster, David
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Walder, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus


Walker, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Wall, Patrick
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Darne Irene
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Whitelaw and




Mr. Michael Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John


Ainsley, William
Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, Frederick


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, r.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H,
Hunter, A. E,
Rankin, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cronin, John
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Anthony
Lawson, George
Small, William


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Mclnnes, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swain, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Fletcher, Eric
Mayhew, Christopher
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J,
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchlson, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Oliver, G. H.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas



Hannan, William
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Wade and Mr. Thorpe.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. It will be possible to discuss with it the Amendment in page 6, line 1, to leave out subsection (4), which stands in the name of the hon. Member

for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) but which has not been selected.

Mr. Diamond: I beg, to move, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "him" and to insert "the Crown".
The Amendment stands in the names of a number of my most senior right hon. Friends, and, unless they have been


as deeply deceived as I may have been, the Amendment hardly needs arguing but only stating. It does not need arguing because there is no onus of proof on us. The onus is on the Government to substantiate subsection (4).
It appears to me that subsection (4) is a complete breach in the normal principles of law and justice. I am no lawyer. I am simply making a simple proposition. I am in favour of justice and against injustice. It is as simple as that. As the Clause stands, if any question arises as to whether the person is a Commonwealth citizen for whom the court could recommend deportation,
…it shall lie on him"—
the Commonwealth citizen—
to prove that he is not such a citizen.
The Amendment would place the onus on the Crown to prove that the person concerned was not a Commonwealth citizen or that he was a Commonwealth citizen capable of being deported on the recommendation of the court.
Having said that, it is hardly necessary to say much more about such a simple principle, which is so easily comprehended by all of us that one can almost hope that the learned Attorney-General will get up and accept it. The only reason that I can think of for his not accepting it is that it is beyond my memory to recall anything that he has ever accepted. However, I live in hope, as we all do on this side of the Committee, and we hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment on this occasion.
The Minister of State said earlier that matters like this are left to the discretion of the court. But this subsection removes that discretion completely. As far as I can see, if the subsection were omitted it would probably have the same effect as that of the Amendment I am moving, namely, that the ordinary principle would apply and the Crown would have to demonstrate that the person concerned was subject not only to the penalty of his offence but to deportation in addition.
We are not concerned here with the deportation of aliens but with the deportation of Commonwealth citizens, some of whom may have been resident for three or four years in this country.

An offence is committed and the question of deportation can then arise. I want to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has pointed out—that now we are dealing with Part II of the Bill and, therefore, with permanent legislation, not with a temporary measure subject to review, however inadequate, in a period of time by the House of Commons. Once we pass Part II it will remain on the Statute Book for a long time.
I see no reason why we should depart from the normal principle. This power to deport arises in the case of an offence having been committed, but that offence has to be proved. The citizen will not have to prove that he has not committed the offence. The prosecution will have to prove that he did commit it. In other words, in the trial for the offence, the normal process of our law will apply. Justice will be seen to be taking place. Of course, it would be reasonable, in the circumstances of a case like that, to require a Commonwealth citizen to explain that he was a Commonwealth citizen of the kind which exempted him from the powers of the court to recommend deportation, but to require an explanation is a very different matter from putting upon him the onus of proof.
Recognising as I do that I am a layman in these matters and that I am surrounded on all sides by distinguished and eminent lawyers, I move the Amendment in the full and earnest hope that we have correctly understood subsection (4) as it stands. If that is so, then it is a grave breach of the principles of British law and should be removed.

Mr. S. Silverman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) that the proposition he is advancing is, or at least ought to be, self-evident. But it evidently is not. The contrary is in the Bill, and there has been no indication so far of any change of mind or heart by the Government. I am at a loss to know why. The proposition contained in subection (4) is in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law. It has been put in deliberately so that in a case where the Government are applying a sanction to one class of British subject which they


do not claim to apply, and should not apply, to another class, it will be incumbent upon the man concerned to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is not a person to whom the sanction can apply.
This is not a matter of the Home Secertary's discretion, although I know that there is
a discretion in the background. The Home Secretary is not bound to accept the recommendation of the court for deportation. The position is a little better, as it should be, than it is in the case of aliens. In their case, the Home Secretary has a discretion about deportation, but it is, subject to an advisory opinion by Bow Street, an absolute discretion. There is no prior condition which has to be fulfilled before he has the right to make an order of deportation. That is not the case with Commonwealth citizens.
7.0 p.m.
The Bill specifically provides that the Home Secretary has no power to deport unless and until an offence has been committed, unless and until a man has been convicted of that offence and unless and until a court of law has decided that there shall be this recommendation to the Home Secretary to add this penalty to any other. It is therefore part of the matter which the court has to try and is not something extraneous or something which happens as an administrative consequence of what the court has to try.
There is no more reason why the onus of proof, which lies on the prosecution to prove every other matter involved in the question which the court has to try, should not lie on the prosecution in this aspect of the matter as well. Presumably, the court will not make a recommendation for deportation on its own initiative. It will have to be invited by the prosecution to do it and presumably, therefore, the prosecution will know all the facts as to whether the man is subject to this part of the Bill and whether he is or is not a Commonwealth citizen within the meaning of this Clause. Why should the prosecution be excused from discharging the onus of proof on that issue when it lies upon it in every other part of the case?
It is possible to explain this total reversal of a basic principle of the British

criminal law only by supposing that the whole scheme has not been considered at all, or has been considered in a spirit of utter malice and vindictiveness. If there is a question as to whether the man before the court is a man who comes under this part of the Bill, the onus of proving that he is such a person ought to lie upon those who assert it, as it does in respect of every other part of the case. To make an exemption on so fundamental a principle in a matter which may be fundamental to the whole future of the man concerned is something which most people, even the Attorney-General in his calmer and more professional moments, would find utterly and completely incomprehensible.
I hope that we are being unjust to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not like hoping that one is being unjust to him, but on this occasion I hope that we are. I hope that he is waiting patiently through all our indictments to say, "What is the excitement about? I always intended to accept this Amendment". Somehow, I do not think that that will happen. He would have been only too anxious to say it earlier if he was to say it at all.
The Committee is not bound to support the Government on every part of the Bill and I hope that hon. Members will make up their own minds, independently of party considerations, or loyalities, or anything of that kind. There are some hon. Members who, to their credit, have taken the responsibility of voting against their own Front Bench more than once on various questions.

Mr. A. R. Wise: And who have been thrown out for it.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that they will do it again. There is no part of the Bill which would justify them more completely in such opposition to their nominal leaders than that which we are now discussing.

The Attorney-General: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I must admit, with some degree of astonishment when I heard that this subsection was a complete breach of our normal principles of law—the words of the hon. Member for


Gloucester—and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that it was in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law. I shall seek to establish, I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee, that that is not the case.
However, I want, first, to point out that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would be that there would be no guidance in the Bill to show on whom the burden of proof would lie.

Mr. S. Silverman: It would not be needed.

The Attorney-General: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member, and I think that, if there were no specific reference, under ordinary law it would still lie on the defence. The effect of the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is to put the burden clearly on the Crown.
No recommendation for deportation
can be made by any court without notice first being served on the accused person under Clause 8. That notice must tell him in respect of what classes of person a recommendation can be made and must give him notice that if he wishes to assert that he is not a Commonwealth citizen to whom this part of the Bill applies it will be for him to prove it.

Mr. Diamond: Within three days.

The Attorney-General: It is not less than three days and in many cases it will be more, and if he wants an adjournment I have no doubt that he would be able to get it. I appreciate that that is not the subject of the challenge, but I thought it right to draw attention to the fact that notice is required to be given as a preliminary step in any proceedings for deportation.
It will be recognised that in every case the facts in relation to an application of this kind will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. He will know whether he is a Commonwealth citizen and whether he comes within one of the three exempted categories.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will not the prosecution know?

The Attorney-General: He will know that positively.

Mr. Diamond: That is reasonable.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester say that it is reasonable to require an explanation from him.
That being the position, I am surprised
by the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the subsection makes a radical departure from the usual rule. Before coming to the authorities on what is the usual rule in these matters, I want to say that if the burden of proof lay on the Crown it would be for the Crown to prove a whole series of negative averments. If we had to prove in each case that the accused was not born in the United Kingdom, that his father was not born in the United Kingdom, that neither of his parents was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, the prosecution would have to prove each of the three categories.
If before making these statements the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had turned to Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, page 375 of the 34th edition, he would have seen this said about negative averments:
The present rule upon the subject appears to be, that in cases where the subject of such averment relates to the prisoner personally, or is peculiarly within his knowledge, the negative is not to be proved by the prosecutor, but, on the contrary, the affirmative must be proved by the prisoner, as a matter of defence…
That is dealing with ordinary criminal prosecutions where there is a negative averment. That is why I said that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne were accepted, and that statement of the law is right, the burden of proof would not be altered.
The House of Commons has on more than one occasion acted on that principle. I quote two recent statutes, and I am sure that there are others. Section 81 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, says:
Where the defendant to an information or complaint relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification, whether or not it accompanies the description of the offence or matter of complaint in the enactment creating the offence or on which the complaint is founded, the burden of proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him; and this not withstanding that the information or complaint contains an allegation negativing the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification.


Section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, says:
Where in any of the foregoing sections the description of an offence is expressed to be subject to exemptions mentioned in the section, proof of the exception is to lie on the person relying on it.
Subsection (2) clearly deals with exceptions, and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne talked about this proposal being completely in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law he must, I fear, have ignored, if he had not forgotten, the fact that under our ordinary criminal law when one is proving an offence where there is an exception the onus, as I have shown from the passage in Archbold, rests on the defence.
If that is the principle with regard to the proof of ordinary criminal offences, if that is the principle recognised in this House in the passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act and the Sexual Offences Act——

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: What about the deportation of aliens under the Aliens Order?

The Attorney-General: I have not that Order with me, but I do not think that that alters the principle. I will refresh my memory on it. I am dealing with the general principle which I think is well established with regard to the burden of proof.

Mr. S. Silverman: Do not pump it up too much.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to pump it up too much, or hit the hon. Gentleman too hard, because I know that if I do he will interrupt me.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, as he always does, put his case forcefully, but in this instance I submit that his case is unfounded, because, so far from being a departure from the general rule, it is an application of the general rule to these particular circumstances. Notice will not be given to any person who is accused that an application will be made for a recommendation for deportation unless there is ground for believing that he is a person to whom the Act applies. But it is one thing for the Crown to have grounds for believing that and another for the Crown to discharge the heavy burden

of proof that lies on it in proving any matter when that matter is so particularly and peculiarly within the accused's personal knowledge.
In every case, of course, the burden of proof on the Crown differs from the burden which rests on the defence—that is clearly established—and all that the defence would have to prove under this subsection to avoid the operation of this part of the Act would be the probability of what it is called on to prove, not absolute proof to the satisfaction of the court, which is what the prosecution would have to establish. All that the defence would have to do would be to establish the probability either that the person concerned was not a Commonwealth citizen at all, or that he was within one of the excepted classes.
7.15 p.m.
To sum up this part of my submission to the Committee, I do not think that there is any departure from our normal principles. I think that this is in accordance with them, and I should like the Committee to consider what would be the position if the burden rested on the Crown to prove this series of negatives in every case. I think that it would be an impossible burden, and it would mean that Part II of the Act would be incapable of operation.
I have risen now because I think it is right that the Committee should raise every time any proposal in a Bill which puts the onus on the defence and seek to have it justified. I think that the Committee and the House would be failing in their duty if they did not raise this question, but we have on many occasions recognised in our statutes that that is not an invariable rule, and with regard to exceptions such as this, the rule is as I have stated, and as I have cited from Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice.
I hope I have satisfied the Committee, or at least some Members of it, that there is a strong case for keeping the Bill in its present form. I submit that it is in accordance with the usual rule and, with common sense, that the accused person who is given notice that an application will be made for his deportation should be required to establish the probability of facts peculiarly within his knowledge if he wishes to assert that Part II of the Act does not apply to him.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think that I must, if only out of deference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, offer him a word in reply. I should have thought, and I say this with extreme diffidence, that what the Attorney-General has said, so far from proving that my hon. Friend is wrong, has proved conclusively that he is right.
What did the Attorney-General say? He said that the basic principle of our law is that the onus of proving a negative should not lie on those who, as it were, assert the negative; that the principle is that the onus of proving a thing shall lie on him who asserts it, not on him who denies it, and that we must not put the onus on anybody of proving a negative.
Subsection (4) says:
If any question arises whether a person is a Commonwealth citizen to whom this section applies, it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen.
In other words, this subsection puts upon the defendant the burden of proving a negative, which is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the Committee was wrong.
I agree with the Attorney-General that it is wrong. I agree that the onus of proof cannot be placed on the proving of a negative. It must lie on those who assert something; not on those who deny it. The Attorney-General knows—he drew our attention to it—that a notice has to be served on the defendant. A notice about what? A notice which asserts, among other things, that he is a person to whom this part of the Act applies. Why then should not the person serving the notice have to prove it? It is very difficult to understand.
Let me draw the Attorney-General's attention to one or two parallel cases under our criminal law. A man may make himself liable to a period of corrective training or to a period of detention. To be liable to it, he must have committed a certain number of a certain kind of offences within a certain period. As in this case, the prosecution has to serve a notice upon the defendant that it is doing that and the notice has to set out what the previous convictions are. It does not call upon the defendant to prove that the convictions never hap

pened. The defendant may deny them. If he does, the onus of proving them lies upon the prosecution, as it ought to do.
Every word that the Attorney-General said established the proposition contended by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in moving the Amendment, and I suggest in all humility that the Attorney-General has not given his mind to the matter in the way that he ought to have done.

The Attorney-General: I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and also to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the Aliens Act. The provision of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, is very similar to this and it runs as follows:
If any question arises on any proceedings under any such Order, or with reference to anything done or proposed to be done under any such Order, whether any person is an alien or not, or is an alien of a particular class or not, the onus of proving that that person is not an alien, or, as the case may be, is not an alien of that class, shall lie upon that person.
That is in line with the provision in this case.
The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne skilfully sought to suggest that because of the form of words in subsection (4), particularly
it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen",
it would be for him to prove a negative. But what has he to prove? For this, one is taken back to subsection (2). To take the
most simple example, he has to prove that he was
a person born in the United Kingdom".
That is a fact which would be within his knowledge. He would have to prove one of the positive matters within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2). If the burden was on the Crown, the Crown would have to prove the negative of each of those propositions. That is why I put it in that way.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I followed the Attorney-General's reasoning, but I am a little puzzled by the way in which he presented the case in his first speech. I followed the argument on subsection (2) about negative averments. The whole


of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case, as I understand it, is based on the existence of the negative averments in subsection (2). That leaves the positive averment in subsection (1). Therefore, the position in subsection (1) is that the Crown has to prove that a person is a Commonwealth citizen and then, under subsection (2), by reason of the exceptions and the negative averments, the accused person—the potential deportee—has to establish that he is the kind of Commonwealth citizen who is excepted by subsection (2). That leaves on the Crown the burden of the positive averment under subsection (1).
In subsection (4), however, one sees that
If any question arises whether a person is a Commonwealth citizen to whom this section applies, it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen.
That would indicate that the burden of proof is upon him, not only in respect of the negative averments under subsection (2), on which the Attorney-General based his whole case, but also in respect of the positive averment under subsection (1) that he is a Commonwealth citizen at all. Therefore, the Attorney-General's reasoning in his first speech completely failed to meet the point made by my hon. Friend.
I accept the Attorney-General's argument on negative averments referable to subsection (2); but for the very reason that I accept those arguments with regard to subsection (2), they are utterly contrary to accepting that the burden of proof should be on the potential deportee with regard to his being a Commonwealth citizen at all. That is exactly what subsection (4) does.
Therefore, I hope that if the Attorney-General does not accept the precise Amendment brought forward by my hon. Friend, he will at least, on his own reasoning, say that he will introduce an Amendment to limit the burden of proof on the potential deportee to the establishment of the facts within subsection (2) but not the facts within subsection (1).

Mr. Chapman: I hesitate to step in when all the lawyers have been having a good time——

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Then do not do so.

Mr. Chapman: —but perhaps we might bring in a little common sense when they sit down. For the first time on the Bill, I agree with the Attorney-General. As I see it, the Amendment does not do what my hon. Friends intended. They wanted to say in the Amendment that if there was doubt whether a person was a Commonwealth citizen liable to be deported the Crown must prove that he is a Commonwealth citizen liable to be deported. That is what my hon. Friends want to establish by their Amendment, but the Amendment does not do that. It would make the Clause state that
it shall lie on the Crown to prove that he is not such a citizen
who is liable to be deported.
The Amendment not only should alter "him" to "the Crown", but should have altered the subsection to a positive statement. The last words of the subsection should have been made to read that
it shall lie on the Crown to prove that he is a Commonwealth citizen".
Therefore, unfortunately, the Amendment does not do what my hon. Friends intend. That is why we have had all these long arguments about negative averments, which I do not understand, which could have been demolished from the beginning by pointing out that the Amendment does not do what it is intended to do.
Nevertheless, I return to the point that it would not have been a bad thing to have an Amendment of the kind intended by my hon. Friends. It would have been a good thing if we could have had a gesture of generosity in this legislation to say that, as these are difficult matters, when doubts arise as to whether a person is liable to be deported there should be onus on the Crown to prove that he is liable to be deported.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Chapman: May I finish? I am trying to come halfway towards what my hon. and learned Friend was saying. The Amendment is wrong, but I am trying to agree with its spirit.
It would have been a good thing if we could have had in this legislation an indication that in cases like this there would be a burden on the Crown to


prove that the person is liable to deportation under the Clause. I say this because a lot of the people who may be involved may well be poor people, who would not go through to the higher parts of our system of justice where they would get skilled legal advice, and it may be difficult for them in the lower ranks of the judicial system to prove their position if they are partly illiterate or, at least, not well educated. I would like to see a gesture of generosity in that respect in this legislation.

The Attorney-General: The Committee is grateful for what one might call the light shown by the layman on our discussion, particularly when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) took the technical point concerning the drafting of the Amendment, which appeared in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I had not sought to rely on that technicality, although it had not escaped my notice, but had endeavoured to meet the spirit of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I have endeavoured to cover the whole field shortly because of the work that lies before us.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicestershire, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has raised a point which I do not think was raised in the moving or seconding of the Amendment. Most of the attention then was focussed on subsection (2). The hon. and learned Member was quite right in saying that I devoted most of my reply to subsection (2). Technically, he has force in his argument that subsection (1) does not contain a negative averment. In my speech, however, I drew attention to the emphasis which is properly laid on matters which are peculiarly personal to and within the knowledge of the person concerned.
7.30 p.m.
In answer to the hon. Member for Northfield, I would say that however illiterate, however uneducated or however poor people may be, they usually have no doubt at all as to whether they are British, Canadian or anything else of that kind. I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee of one thing, and it is this. With legal aid so readily available in these days, if

notice that deportation is to be recommended is served upon someone I do not doubt that every inquiry will be made to find out whether there it any support for, say, his assertion that he comes within one of the exceptions, or that he is not a Commonwealth citizen at all.
I do not think that this provision will work at all in the way of hardship. Nobody, and no court, wants to make a recommendation to deport anyone unless it is absolutely certain that it is the right course to follow. The precedents of the Aliens
Act has, as I have pointed out, been followed out in this case. I have not heard any complaints about how that Act has worked, and I do not believe that when this Measure is on the Statute Book we shall find any complaint about how its machinery operates.

Mr. Diamond: I know that I do not have to apologise to the Committee for raising what seemed to many of us to be a principle of simple justice. Indeed, the Attorney-General was good enough to say that he thought it right that whenever a matter like this occurred in legislation it should be raised. I said before the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke that I recognised immediately the need for explanation; not being a lawyer, I took it that there was a considerable difference between making an explanation and having the onus of proof resting on one with regard to an allegation that one was not covered by the Clause.
We have heard the learned Attorney-General's explanation. On him rests the supreme responsibility of being satisfied that this provision is in direct conformity with our normal principles of seeing that justice is done. He is satisfied about that, and it is his responsibility to advise the Committee that this is so. In that sense, I accept his advice and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: I have spoken only very briefly in my various interventions and I propose to continue that practice, but it is important that some of us who have been heavily involved in the Bill should say one or two things on


this main matter of deportation. It is a fact, and I do not complain about it, that there is considerable support in the country for the Bill. In opposing it, we do not deny that, but we do not think that the popularity of a Measure is necessarily an indicator of its justice. It is on those grounds, when we judge the Bill's rightness in principle, that we have to oppose it.
At the same time, some of us who have been heavily criticised—and we do not grumble about that—want to make it clear that we have no objection to this part of the Bill. It is right, if the procedure is proper, that people who commit crimes as defined here, and the people who are defined here, should be deported, and I am glad to note, that, amongst others, the Prime Minister of Jamaica has said that Commonwealth people accept that.
To that extent, this part of the Bill is satisfactory, but there are one or two other things that ought to be said about its effects. I hope that something can be done, particularly now that this Measure is being passed, to make it clear to our people, or to get people to make it clear, that there is no reason to believe that there is a huge crime wave amongst coloured people in the United Kingdom. It is really monstrous to keep saying that there are thousands of coloured people who ought to be deported because they are continually indulging in crime. That is not true. It is a gross slander of many of them, but it is continually repeated.
There was a letter in The Times of 25th November about this aspect of the Bill. It was written, I think, by a Birmingham stipendiary magistrate in these terms, "While you are all talking about this business, we are busy trying cases in the court. My colleague and I this morning tried 47 cases, and this was the score: West Indians—none; Wales—2; Scotland—three; England—10; Ireland—32." I do not draw any conclusions from that, but I repeat that it is monstrous to keep on visiting the sins of a few of them on the 300,000 West Indians living here. People should stop saying that thousands of coloured people come here to commit crime, and should be deported.
I have another piece of evidence, in the form of a report by the Birmingham

Co-ordinating Committee for Coloured People, which states:
On the contrary, one probation officer, working an area of the city where many immigrants live, finds that the 70 cases on his list are West Indian, 2; African, 1; Irish, 17; ordinary Birmingham citizens, 50.
Let us keep this matter in proportion. I do not say that the absolute opposite extreme is the case, and that none of these people indulges in crime and ought not to be deported, but let us keep this in balance, and stop pretending there are so many coloured people indulging in criminal activities.
I am reminded that in the northern States of America, it is now general newspaper practice never to mention the colour of a man about whom a report is written. If a man is an American citizen his name is given as, say, "John Brown", and the code amongst newspapers is not to say that he is a negro citizen of the United States.
I wish that we could get that practice accepted here. What do we find in the Birmingham newspapers, for instance? We get things like, "Jamaican caught with knife in hand"; "Jamaican attacks another". They do not speak of an Irishman or an Englishman doing that. The fact is that the minority of cases involving coloured people is exaggerated in the minds of the public because colour is screamed at them in the headlines. Amongst all the other criminal activity going on, people remember that case because it was headlined with colour in it.
I hope that when the Bill is enacted, and when Part II comes into practice, the Home Secretary will support a campaign to get the newspapers to stop labelling with their colour people who are British citizens and who are as equal to me as any white man is equal to me inside this country.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver: I entirely agree that we do not want to prejudice the coloured people, or put out wrong information about them. If, during the whole of 1961, immigrants had been liable to deportation as aliens, just over 220 cases would have had to be considered in Birmingham. To make the other point, the figure for Irishmen was just over 530. I think that we should be clear about that.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that it is only right that I should, having heard the remarks of hon. Members, say a few words on this part of the Bill, which is rather technical. This is a most important Clause. It introduces, for the first time, the power to deport Commonwealth citizens from this country. It is a new power and we considered it very carefully before putting it in the Bill.
We think that there is a strong case for having this power and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and other hon. Members have acknowledged that, subject to the criticism they made of the Clause, they consider that taking the power is legitimate. It only remains for me to say that the power will be exercised with the utmost care and reticence.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), as usual, spotted the difference between this and the power for aliens. The Clause makes it clear that the power can be operated only on the recommendation of a court following conviction of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment. It is, therefore, carefully hedged about and much more carefully phrased than in the case of the aliens legislation. I can give an undertaking to the Committee that there will not be a great number of cases involved. There are not a large number of alien deportation cases. Deportation will be carefully considered and carried out under the Secretary of State's personal signature. It can only be done on the recommendation of a court subject to some of the observations which were made by the Attorney-General in his intervention earlier on points of law.
On the question of retrospection, I listened with interest to the remarks that were made on the previous Amendment and I endorse what was said by the Under-Secretary. I think that there was something in the Bill, as drawn, which hon. Members considered undesirable—the question of the commission of an offence before the Act comes into force. We have decided to look at this before the Report stage to bring it more into

line with other legislation which does not permit retrospection in this sphere. I hope that I have shown that we intend to interpret the Clause in as reasonable a manner as we can.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), because in one case during my Home Secretaryship, a strike was organised by the Longshoreman's Union in Canada, a branch of a union which is really domiciled in the United States. Some Canadians came here and organised a strike in the London docks and I could not deal with any of them. Then, for some reason or other, the United States branch of the union did not think that the Canadians were prosecuting the strike vigorously enough and they sent two American officers of the union over. They were deported on the day they landed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, there was no nonsense when I was Secretary of State. There was no being subservient to the United States.
I regret that the Home Secretary considers the Bill to be necessary, but I will not go over all the arguments against it again. When people are our guests, however, and they abuse the position in the kind of way I have indicated—the Canadians in question—the Home Secretary should have the power to treat them as we would treat disorderly guests in our own home. He should have the power to say that if they wish to conduct themselves in such a manner they should do so in the place where they were brought up.
I understand that under the Clause as now drawn the most distinguished Canadian in this country, who does so much to control opinion here, is not liable to deportation. In any case, when I listened to the Home Secretary I thought that whereas a conjurer relies on the principle that the quickness of the hand will deceive the eye, the right hon. Gentleman considers that the quickness of the tongue will deceive the ear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(POWER OF COURT TO RECOMMEND FOR DEPORTATION.)

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "seventeen" and to insert "twenty-five".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I think that it will be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 6, line 25, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Silverman: The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt from the liability to deportation persons up to the age of 25 instead of as the Bill is now drafted up to the age of 17. I hope to have the sympathetic hearing and, possibly, the support of the Home Office for this Amendment, because it seems that, apart from any legal arguments, the argument in support of it is in line with what has always been plain public policy.
To be liable to be deported one has, first of all, to be convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The key word is "punishable" and not "punished". In other words, it is not necessary, in order to render oneself liable under the Clause to deportation, to be sentenced to imprisonment. It is sufficient if one is convicted of an offence for which one might, if the court thought fit, be sentenced to imprisonment—even though the court decides in the particular case that the offence committed, though carrying such a statutory liability, is not such as to deserve it.
In other words, all that is required here is that the offence itself, in general, should carry with it a possible sentence of imprisonment but not necessarily an actual sentence of imprisonment for the particular case. To see the effect of that, one should look at Clause 7 (3), which states:
In this section 'offence punishable with imprisonment' includes an offence which would be so punishable apart from any enactment restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or of first offenders…
That is particularly pertinent in the case of the Amendment because not merely is it public policy, but statutory, that a court in this country should not send anyone to prison under the age of 17—that is not pertinent here because 17 is the word in the Clause now—but that between the ages of 17 and 21 no court

can send an offender to prison unless there is really, in all the circumstances of the case, nothing else that can reasonably be done with him.
Therefore, if this Clause remains unamended we have the situation that a young person whom the court is forbidden from sending to prison may nevertheless be recommended for deportation. I suggest in all seriousness to the Home Secretary that this is an anomaly which he does not need, and which he could easily remove.
Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule about not sending young people to prison between the ages of 17 and 21. An opponent of nuclear strategy who, for that reason, commits offences against the highways Acts lays himself open to a fine up to a maximum of 40s. If the fine is not paid, apparently public policy does not prevent young persons of that kind being sent to prison, and a great many of them have been sent to prison in recent months.
Also if one is not a criminal at all, even in that technical sense, if no charge has been and can be brought, but nevertheless under a 600 years old Statute whose meaning nobody quite knows one is called upon to enter into certain recognisances and refuses to do so, then apparently, whatever one's age, one can still be sent to prison. Even the 17 years of age limitation does not apply.
However, we are not dealing with that kind of case. We are dealing with the case of the ordinary criminal, as to whom this House has said that it is better not to send such people to prison unless there is no other course open, but to deal with them in some other way, because one ought not to regard it as axiomatic that a prison sentence is the most useful or most desirable form of punishment for a person under the age of 21. Other methods are open which ought to be tried—ways of reform, probation, perhaps fines, some other kind of penalty that will keep a young person out of this kind of contact and out of prison.
If we take so much trouble to do that, is it not wrong that we should nevertheless subject people to the possibility of deportation at the age of 17 or a year or two beyond it, in cases where a penalty of imprisonment would be


regarded as inappropriate? If the imprisonment is inappropriate, then the deportation is a fortiori inappropriate.
I conceive that it does not necessarily follow that if 17 is the wrong age 25 is the right one. There may well be a case for saying that I have put the age too high, and that on my own argument the age of 21 would be more appropriate than 25. I shall not pursue that part of the argument, although something can be said in favour of the age of 25. What I am saying is that 17 is too young.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is obviously a matter of judgment, and a difficult matter of judgment, where to fix the age at which persons must be considered fully responsible for their acts. In the criminal law of this country the age of 17, although not the only dividing line, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, is a very considerable dividing line. At the age of 17 a person ceases to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and the provisions of the law which put children and young persons in a special and protected position cease to apply to them. By this age, therefore, the law generally recognises that a young person is to a large extent his own master.
When one realises that by the age of 17 one can marry—and a lot of young persons are already married at that age, and many of them from the age of 17 onwards are the fathers and mothers of families—then it seems that probably the age of 17 in present circumstances is as good an age as one can find for visiting not the full responsibility but a great deal of criminal responsibility upon the subject.
Crime at present is unfortunately preponderantly an activity of the young. The number of males per 100,000 of the population found guilty of indictable offences in 1960 was as follows, in certain age groups: from 17 to 21–2,189; 21 to 25–1,531; 25 to 30–1,012; 30 to 40–594. Therefore, the 17 to 21 age group unfortunately is a large group in which a great many indictable offences are to be found.
For this reason and for others it is not possible for the Executive to remove from its power the possibility of deporting such people. I am sure that it will

only be exercised in very serious cases, but it seems right that in a proper case of someone over this age who, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), completely abuses the hospitality of this country there should be power to deport him.
Of course, the Secretary of State is not bound to act on a court's recommendation, and before making a deportation order he would certainly have regard to any compassionate plea based on such matters as age and the family ties of the offender if his family should be in this country. Therefore, he would not deport unless the offence were so serious and the circumstances of the offender made it absolutely necessary. However, I am afraid that we cannot deprive ourselves of the power to do so, because, generally speaking, under the criminal law of this country, after the age of 17 a great deal of responsibility is expected of the offender.
It is true that it is only in rare cases that such a person is sent to prison, but, of course, there are other methods of detention which are applicable, such as borstal and detention centres which are frequently used. The dislike of sending these offenders to prison is not because it is not thought right to detain them but simply because they ought not to mix with older prisoners. But that such persons should be detained and punished from time to time is obvious from the remedies at our command, and for those persons we feel that in certain cases, which I am sure must be few, the right to deport must be preserved.

Mr. Weitzman: I am very disappointed by the answer of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has not dealt with the main point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He referred specifically to Clause 7 (3). The Legislature has recognised clearly that persons under the age of 21 shall not be sent to prison without a court order. Why was it necessary, therefore, in this case where the words "offence punishable with imprisonment" appear in Clause 7 (1), to insert subsection (3) to include specifically persons between the ages of 17 and 21?
I should have thought that it would have been an act of mercy and of grace


on the part of the Government to say that the age should be, if not 25 which my hon. Friend has suggested, at any rate 21. It seems extraordinary that the Government are determined to make this provision as stringent as possible, and I hope that they will think again about the matter.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: If I may comment on the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary about the age at which some people marry, we ought to remember that some marry at 16 and others even have legitimate families at 16. I am only relieved to think that he did not pursue the logic of his own argument and put the age of 16 into this Clause. There is not, I think, any very strong case for making it 17. I should be less worried about this if the Government had accepted the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) which at least would have safeguarded children who were living with their families and would have prevented them from being deported at the age of 17.
A particular group of children who come to join their families over here and who have difficulty in settling down may commit offences while here, and we all agree with the Joint Under-Secretary that that is unfortunate, but it is inconceivable to me that in any circumstances the right treatment is to split them from their families and send them back again to a country where they may have no roots, no one to look after them and no family ties at all. That is what the Government may be doing if they have the powers under this Clause.
The real argument against this is not whether these young people behave well or badly but whether it is right to ship them off to another country without having any control over what may happen to them in that country and without any provision to see that they have adequate supervision over there. This would seem to me to be a very hard-hearted thing to do. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right when he says that this power will hardly ever be used. I accept that, and as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman is at the Home Office one hopes that it will not be used and that if it is used it will be used wisely and humanely. In that case I

think that it is quite unnecessary to keep it. But there is a potential danger in having it in the Bill. I hope that it will not be used, but if it is used the effects can only be thoroughly bad. I think that it would be quite wrong for youngsters to be deported from this country where they are trying to settle down and which is very often part of the problem that causes the committing of offences. It is, unfortunately, part of the business of growing up. It would be most undesirable if they could be thrown back again into what virtually may be a foreign country.

Mr. M. Foot: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, I do not think that the answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was satisfactory. Of course, those of us who are opposed to the whole of the Bill are also opposed to the deportation Clauses, because we are not in favour of making distinctions between those who are, as we believe, British Commonwealth citizens. If there is to be any case for the deportation Clauses, I can see that possibly there is a case for saying that we want to have some deterrent effect in preventing, or helping to prevent, the hardened criminal, or semi-hardened criminal, from other parts of the Commonwealth coming to this country.
I can see that there may be some case for that. One may say that by having these Clauses to deport them, even though we do not catch them coming in, it may be possible to stop them from organising their crimes here. But, clearly, that does not apply to most of the young people between the ages of 17 and 21. It is extremely improbable that it will deter a person from coming here who is a criminal in some other part of the Commonwealth because of the threat of deportation after he gets here. I would have thought that very improbable. Indeed, under the rest of the Bill they probably would not be able to get in anyhow. So we do not need that power.
What, in fact, we shall be doing, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be to deport young people of the age of 17 to 21, or up to 25 if the Amendment is carried, who will cause a lot of trouble in the countries to which they are sent and which, after all, are Commonwealth


countries and they will be criminals who are manufactured here and sent there. That does not seem to me a very fair proceeding.
If, in particular, the Minister said that he does not think that many people will be deported between these ages I would have thought that it would have been more generous for him to say that as only a small number will be involved we can forgo the right of being able to deport young people from this country

between the ages of 17 and 21, at any rate. If the Government can forgo that they would not be conceeding very much. They have not really established that the Clause as applied to these young people is part of what the Government set out to do in the deportation Clauses of the Bill.

Question put, That "seventeen" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 8.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Partridge, E.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Percival, Ian


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barlow, Sir John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pott, Percival


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bell, Ronald
Hobson, John
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hollingworth, John
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornby, R. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, David


Brooman-White, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godmart (Rye)
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Bullard, Denys
James, David
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Seymour, Leslie


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shaw, M.


Gary, Sir Robert
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Leather, E. H. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Chataway, Christopher
Leburn, Gilmour
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speir, Rupert


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey



Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Tapsell, Peter


Cole, Norman
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Stephen
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cooper, A. E.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Critchley, Julian
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Deedes, W. F.
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maginnis, John E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vickers, Miss Joan


Eden, John
Marlowe, Anthony
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marshall, Douglas
Walder, David


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Morrison, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Gilmour, Sir John
Nabarro, Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Clover, Sir Douglas
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
MacColl, James



Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Weitzman, David
Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Thorpe


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Mr. Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert: "upon indictment".

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment may be taken for discussion the following further Amendments:
In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert:
other than an offence of a political character,".
In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert:
for a term exceeding twelve months
In page 6, line 32, to leave out subsection (4).
In page 6, line 33, after "shall" to insert:
in England be exercisable only by the High Court and".
In Clause 8, page 7, line 9, at the end to insert:
(3) Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him.
In Clause 8, page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Weitzman: Under subsection (1) as it now stands, if a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 17 is convicted
of an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court by or before which he is convicted, or any court to which his case is brought by way of appeal against conviction or sentence, may recommend that a deportation order be made in respect of him.
As was pointed out in our discussion of the last Amendment, the words are
an offence punishable with imprisonment
There are many offences punishable with imprisonment. For a small amount involved in a charge of larceny or embezzlement, a person would be liable to imprisonment, and even for a second or subsequent offence of travelling on a railway with intent to evade payment or not paying an additional fare after prolonging the journey for which he has paid the proper fare with intent to avoid payment, he would be liable, at the discre-

tion of the court, to one month's imprisonment.
As was pointed out during our discussion on the last Amendment, a person need not be sentenced to imprisonment. Subsection (1) says that a person
convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment
may have
a deportation order be made in respect of him.
It may be a quite trivial offence for which he can be fined a small sum. We must also remember the effect of subsection (3) on persons under 21 years of age. Under the Clause as drafted, if a person is charged in a magistrates' court and is found guilty of a comparatively trivial offence,
a recommendation for deportation may be made against him by the magistrates. Under subsection (2)
No recommendation…shall be made upon the conviction of an offender who satisfies the court (a) that he is or was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the date of his conviction; and (b) that he has been continuously so resident for a period of at least five years ending with that date.
When a youth who may have lived in this country since he was 14 and who is found guilty of a trivial offence is 18 years of age he is liable to a recommendation for deportation being made against him by the magistrates. I am sure that no one will disagree that, to a person aginst whom such a recommendation is made, it is a matter of vital importance and that such a recommendation should not be made except in the most serious cases.
I anticipate that the Attorney-General will say that that may be said to the magistrates and that the magistrates will take it into account. But I am sure that the Attorney-General, from past experience, will remember the procedure in the magistrates' courts and will remember the number of cases which are dealt with. I do not suggest that magistrates do not endeavour to do the best that they can in all cases, but the conditions under which they deal with cases are such that it is not possible to give the attention to a case which is given in a higher court. The magistrates'


court is not a proper tribunal to deal with a serious matter of this kind. Power to make such a recommendation should lay only in a superior court. That is the effect of the Amendment. Only upon indictment—that is, when the matter is dealt with at assizes or quarter sessions—should there be power to make such a recommendation and, of course, in such a case an appeal would lie from the decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Amendment to Clause 8, in page 7, line 9, is important. Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, reads:
Where on the summary trial under subsection (3) of section eighteen or section nineteen of this Act of an indictable offence triable by quarter sessions a person who is not less than seventeen years old is convicted of the offence, then, if on obtaining information about his character and antecedents the court is of opinion that they are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for the offence than the court has power to inflict, the court may, instead of dealing with him in any other manner, commit him in custody to quarter sessions for sentence in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
I have sought to deal with this matter by using these words:
Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him.
In other words, every case will be covered. There is the case upon indictment in which the court dealing with the matter may, in a proper case, make a recommendation for an order for deportation. Where the matter is of a serious character and where the magistrates dealing with an indictable offence triable in summary fashion are of opinion that a recommendation for deportation should be made, just as they may think, in a proper case, that a sentence greater than that which they can give should be imposed, there is power under the Amendment for the case to be sent to quarter sessions so that quarter sessions can make a recommendation for deportation. If that Amendment were accepted, my Amendment to Clause 8 in page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3) would follow.
This is a matter of great importance, and I urge the Government to recognise that the power to recommend deporta

tion should be exercised only in the circumstances which I have mentioned. I hope that they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendment. It is proposed to give extremely wide powers to magistrates, powers which will be exercised in many cases by lay magistrates. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of magistrates, particularly of lay magistrates, but it is established practice to limit powers, particularly those of punishment, of the magistracy and particularly of the lay magistracy. Their powers to impose imprisonment are limited. They have power to recommend that a person should be sent to Borstal training, but they have no power to send a person to Borstal training. Yet, in the Bill, magistrates whose powers of imprisonment are limited and who have no power to order a young man to undergo Borstal training can make a recommendation for deportation.

Mr. H. Hynd: A lay magistrate has power to recommend Borstal training.

Mr. Bowen: Yes. That illustrates the point which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has in mind. He believes that magistrates should have power to send a case to quarter sessions with a recommendation that part of the treatment of the offender should be deportation. The argument is that their powers in respect of deportation should be precisely the same as their powers in relation to Borstal training. The final word should not be with the magistrates. It should be with a court which normally deals with offences on indictment.

Mr. H. Hynd: Such a court would make a recommendation.

Mr. Bowen: No. Courts of quarter sessions or assize do not recommend people for Borstal training. They order them to undergo Borstal training.

Mr. Hynd: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the last word should be with a court of quarter sessions or assize. It would not be, because the higher court would merely make a recommendation to the Home Secretary. The Government would have the final word.

Mr. Bowen: Certainly. It may be argued that, even if lay magistrates, or indeed any magistrates, make a mistake or their judgment is not regarded as sound, the Home Secretary can put it right. I do not think that the Government should hide behind this argument, because the last thing on earth that anybody wants is for courts to make recommendations for deportation which are not carried out. I agree that there may be exceptional cases in which the Home Secretary would think it right to intervene, but if the Home Secretary were a court of appeal from decisions by magistrates a completely wrong atmosphere would be created. I believe that it would be guile an exceptional matter for a recommendation for deportation by a court not to be carried out.
8.30 p.m.
It may be argued that there is another cure. A sentence by magistrates can always be appealed against. The Bill as it stands will encourage appeals. If a man is given a sentence and linked with it there is a recommendation for deportation, even though he may have no objection to the sentence he will appeal to quarter sessions to have the recommendation for deportation reviewed. Quarter sessions will then have to hear an appeal, in a case in which there is no objection to the sentence, merely so that the recommendation for deportation can be reviewed. Rather than force people to exercise their right of appeal when they do not wish to appeal, it would be far more satisfactory if the procedure contained in Section 29 of the 1952 Act were followed. Let the magistrates have the power to send the case forward with a view to a recommendation for deportation being made.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I intervene because I have a very similar Amendment on the Notice Paper. My Amendment in page 6, line 7, proposes to delete "imprisonment" and to insert:
for a term exceeding twelve months".
You have said, Mr. Thomas, that my Amendment may be discussed with the Amendment in page 6, line 6.
My proposal is that a recommendation for deportation should not be made except in a case where the offence for

which the man is convicted caries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months. It would not matter whether the man was awarded that sentence or not. My Amendment would have very much the same effect as that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington, and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
I want, in a few sentences, to associate myself with the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). Clause 7 (1) is one of the most objectionable provisions in the Bill. It means that anyone brought before a court—whether it be a court of assize, a court of quarter sessions, or a court of summary jurisdiction—and convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment, no matter whether he is actually sentenced to imprisonment, will be liable to be recommended for deportation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington gave one example of somebody who, for the second time, travels on the railway without paying his fare. My hon. and learned Friend said that such a person would be liable to be recommended for deportation under this Clause. Of course, it does not end there. There is in this country an enormous number of petty offences punishable with one or two or three months' imprisonment, and under the provisions of this Clause, if it should become law, anyone who is convicted of any such offence is liable to be caught by the provisions of the Clause. It may not happen very often, but it is something which may happen, and, therefore, it is something which we in this Committee must take into our contemplation.
I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) a moment ago. It is true that they can only make a recommendation; it is true that the last word lies with the Home Secretary; but nothing could be worse and nothing could be more likely to bring the courts into disrespect than that we should have a large number of recommendations


which, in effect, were simply ignored by the Department concerned.
If we have a recommendation made by a court it is a recommendation which, in the ordinary way, ought to be carried out; it is not something which ought to be simply passed over. Therefore, I support the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, namely, that it is not a sufficient safeguard and is not a sufficient answer to say that the last word rests with the Home Secretary and that he may not act upon the recommendation of the court.
There is another aspect of it. Suppose we leave to all the thousands of magistrates' courts in this country—and most of them, I know, carry out their duties very well, but there is a large number of them and they vary to some degree—this power of making this particular recommendation. Some of them, at any rate, will make recommendations which are not justified. Some time is bound to elapse in every case between the making of a recommendation and the decision of the Home Secretary, and that means that for the unfortunate individual concerned this matter is hanging over his head—hanging over his head and the head of his family.
As has already been pointed out, and nobody has denied, we are dealing with something of extreme gravity to the persons concerned, and even though there may be no real prospect of the Home Secretary's acting on the recommendation, the man concerned cannot possibly know that. All he will know, for days and it may be for weeks, is that he is in peril. And so we inflict an unnecessary amount of suffering upon those concerned.
As I said, my Amendment is to very much the same effect as that of my hon. and learned Friend's. I do not mind which of them is accepted provided that one of them is, but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General that nothing whatever would be lost to the Bill and a great deal would be gained if he would proceed upon the lines now proposed and, in effect, confine this power to make recommendations to courts of assize and quarter sessions.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I want to support what my hon. and learned Friends have said about this subsection (1). I also want to draw attention to the Amendment to which I have put my name and which is in the names of two of my hon. Friends, in page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", insert:
other than an offence of a political character".
At first sight it may seem that the possibility of someone being deported under this subsection for an offence of a political character is rather remote. We may ask ourselves how many cases there would be of offences punishable by imprisonment which were of a political character. But there are certain examples which come to my mind, and one is a fairly recent one.
We have had cases quite recently of civil disobedience in protest against the H-bomb.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Lady is referring to proceedings sub judice at the moment.

Mrs. Castle: I am simply putting for illustration a type of offence of a political character which has led to imprisonment of certain people. I am not raising the merits or demerits of any particular incident. I am taking it as a general illustration.

The Attorney-General: I only mention that because there is a case which has some relation to this particular matter and which is due to start on Monday. I only mention it because the hon. Lady in seeking to make this case might inadvertently say something which might affect that case.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure all of us will bear in mind what has been said.

Mrs. Castle: I have no intention of referring to any particular case, and therefore I cannot err in that respect. I am taking this merely as an illustration of the type of political activity which in a large number of cases has led to imprisonment due to political convictions.
We have cases where people have demonstrated, have been taken to court and have been fined and have, on conscientious grounds, refused to pay. They


have been imprisoned for refusing to pay a fine for an offence of a political nature, and their action has been taken on the ground of political belief and conscience. It may arise, and it may well have arisen already, that some of the individuals involved are Common, wealth citizens who would fall within the scope of the Bill. If that were so and they were to repeat these political offences after the Bill was passed then, as the Bill stands, they could not only he imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine but they could be recommended by the court at the end of that term of imprisonment for deportation as well.
This is an illustration of the kind of situation that could arise under subsection (1) unless an Amendment similar to that in my name were accepted by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we should tighten the subsection and make clear that we do not have in mind any possibility of a person being deported because of political activities which are freely engaged in by our own nationals and people resident in this country. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 2 (3, b). We make clear there that where the immigration officer exercises his power of refusing admission to people whom he has reason to believe have been convicted of a crime, political crimes are not included because they are not extradition crimes under the Extradition Acts. Under that subsection political activity would not count. We should make it clear also that it does not count for deportation. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to bear in mind seriously that this situation could arise and that we ought to deal with it on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Cooper: I have been here for only twelve years, Mr. Thomas, and it is perhaps not unnatural that you should not know my name.

The Temporary Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member. I have been here only seventeen years.

Mr. Cooper: I want to make a short point relating to the Extradition Act. There is unquestionably a good deal of

sympathy for the various Amendments which we are now discussing and I think that it would be thoroughly undesirable if somebody who is sent to prison for a matter of days for some quite minor offence should leave himself open to the possibility of deportation. If we are satisfied with Clause 2 (3, b), which lays down certain qualifications which would prohibit a person coming into the country, why cannot we use the same form of words as the basis of the crimes which would enable us to deport him?

Mr. James MacColl: I intervene because the Amendment was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and he was followed by two other hon. and learned Members and I think it desirable to say that I should hope that the presence of the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and myself on the Amendment indicates that it is not in any sense an attack on or criticism of lay magistrates.
8.45 p.m.
What the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said is perfectly sound, that it is a basic principle that one limits the power of lower courts, however well run and however conscientious they are, in respect of the passing of grave sentences. If one did not do that one might just as well argue that magistrates' courts should be able to sentence people to death because, after all, one could appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal eventually from the sentence, and in any case the Home Secretary would never allow it to be carried out without very careful inquiry.
That kind of approach is fundamentally vicious, that one should have the courts perhaps making bad mistakes and saying that it did not much matter because the Home Office, the Executive, would put right a stupid thing done by the judiciary. That kind of approach is a much more serious attack on the freedom and independence of our law courts than any suggestion that lay magistrates or stipendiary magistrates are not fully qualified to deal with very grave sentences. We are here discussing a very serious sentence indeed.
My first assumption is that we want to reduce to the absolute minimum the


power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens. It is profoundly distasteful to all of us. We want it to be done only in the gravest cases.
Secondly, in view of that, what magistrates would be accused of limiting this power in the way that my hon. and Learned Friend suggests? I hope that the Attorney-General will explain that to us. I cannot imagine the kind of cases that might slip through the net because they were not indictable offences and, 'therefore, could not be taken to a higher court for the passing of the sentence. It seems to me that in any normal kind of criminal offence of the gravest kind——

Mr. Bowen: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that they could still go to a higher court to be dealt with on non-indictable offences.

Mr. MacColl: Under the Magistrates' Courts Act? [Interruption.] There seems to be a slight disagreement between two Queen's Counsel, and I think that I had better keep out of that.
It seems to me that there are two possible types of case here. One is where it is very clear from the beginning that the prosecution is of the opinion that the case is likely to go as far as deportation and it can ask for a trial on indictment in a higher court. The other type of case is that where the hearing takes place in a magistrates' court and in the course of that hearing it becomes clear from the record of the prisoner and the gravity of the case that the person concerned ought to be considered for deportation, in which case the power of the Magistrates' Courts Act can be invoked to have the case sent to quarter sessions. I should have thought that those twin powers were perfectly adequate safeguards against a grave offender escaping from deportation where that was felt to be necessary.
As well as the general principle that one wants to keep this responsibility as narrow as possible, one does not want to spread it and regard it as a trivial routine in every case so that at the end of the case someone gets up and says, "Recommendation for deportation" and

the magistrates say "Yes" in a rather casual way. That is the danger. In order to make it perfectly clear that this is a very solemn thing and something which Parliament takes very seriously and to which it agrees only very reluctantly, I should have thought that this was a matter which ought to go to a higher court to be considered.
Secondly, of course, one has to recognise that magistrates' courts are—and this is their quality and value—very much local courts looking at local problems locally. They are meant to be so. But it is desirable that where a wider view has to be taken and a balance held between one kind of case and another this should be done by the judge of a higher court such as a recorder or a judge of assize.
I beg the Attorney-General to consider this matter very carefully. If he agreed to the Amendment he would be making a great gesture to what we are saying—that this is a very serious sanction, to be carried out only after very careful consideration. He would avoid the risk of appearing to elevate the discretion of the Home Secretary above the decisions of the courts, and of causing the recommendations of the courts to come to be regarded with a certain amount of indifference. He would also be securing that these matters would be considered by the kind of court which has the power to pass the more serious sentences. We do not allow magistrates' courts to pass other sentences as serious as deportation orders, which are, after all, of tremendous consequence to the persons concerned. This is not a matter which should be dealt with summarily.

Mr. M. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has put an overwhelming case, and I hope that the Attorney-General will respond to it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also reply to what I have to say, although it is not directly on the Amendment which has been moved. I refer to the Amendment mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) concerning the exclusion of political offences from this Clause.
One of the factors which has held the Commonwealth together—though we are


injuring it in this Bill—is that large numbers of people, particularly students, have come here and have learned their politics with us. This factor will be injured by the general operation of the Bill, but we should at least guard against further injury by accepting an Amendment to exclude political offences.
We know that political offences regarded as most reprehensible in one period become most honoured in the next. Therefore, a political offence is not something that should be held against a person. Many of the people who have come to this country and have then committed political offences—joining in strikes when they were regarded as political offences or in other kinds of activities—have contributed perhaps not to the liberties of their own countries but certainly to the liberties of our own.
The Government should devise a means whereby all political offences are excluded from the Bill. We are introducing here an entirely new crime as applied to British Commonwealth citizens and are also introducing a new remedy—so-called—of deportation for some of them. I suppose that almost the last British citizens deported from this country were the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I cannot think of any others. That is not a good recommendation for retaining mere political offences in a Bill of this nature.
In any case, on Second Reading and since, the claim by the Home Secretary and others has been that this Clause did not have anything to do with political offences but was required in order to deal with serious crimes. If that is so, then the Government should accept the Amendment on that ground, and also on the ground that only the Home Secretary can know exactly what kind of new political offences can occur. It would be absolutely outrageous if a student who came to this country, participated in the activities, say, of the Committee of 100 and was sent to prison, were to be deported on that account. It would be an advertisement of the abandonment of liberal principles by this country, and it would be a kind of propaganda exactly opposite to that which this country would wish to conduct in the rest of the world.
I hope that while recognising the serious nature of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, the Attorney-General will also recognise that there should be something in the Bill to exclude political offences.

The Attorney-General: I will endeavour to reply to some of the points which have been made by those who have spoken in support of the Amendment and those Amendments which have been discussed with it. It is a fairly formidable task, because I want to keep what I have to say to the shortest possible compass. I propose, first, to deal with the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). That is linked to and closely associated with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot). I will then proceed to say something about the Amendment on political offences, which comes in a separate category.
It does not advance the case one way or another to draw attention to offences of a trivial character which, in certain circumstances, could be followed by a sentence of imprisonment, because I do not believe that any court anywhere in the country would ever consider deporting someone for offences of that character. I share the view of hon. Members opposite that deportation is a serious matter and must flow from very serious misconduct. I accept those two propositions. But in approaching this argument I want to put on one side the kind of case which carries a sentence of imprisonment, but in respect of which no court would ever dream of recommending deportation. The problem is to arrive at a satisfactory machinery for dealing with serious cases which warrant deportation.
The test which the hon. and learned
Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has put forward is not satisfactory. Nor is that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. One has to leave a great deal to the discretion of the courts and I shall advance reasons to show why it is necessary to leave magistrates' courts with powers, as the Bill proposes, to make


recommendations for deportation on conviction for summary offences.
Let us examine the yardstick which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North proposes. He first proposes that it should be possible to recommend deportation only in cases which are tried on indictment. That greatly narrows the powers of the courts to make that recommendation, but it is not a wholly satisfactory yardstick. The reason is that a fair number of these cases which are tried on
indictment are cases where the accused has elected to go for trial. The hon. and learned Gentleman has coupled with his proposal that there should be power under Section 29, where the case is committed for sentence, for the superior court to make the recommendation. I do not think that the Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is satisfactorily covered by subsection (3) of Clause 8, and that that will happen.
But there again, that power under Section 29 of that Act relates only to indictable offences, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) fell into error in that respect.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I agree that it deals only with indictable offences, but it deals with indictable offences which are not dealt with on indictment but which are dealt with summarily. I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us the type of summary offences he has in mind which could be dealt with by a recommendation for deportation.

The Attorney-General: I was about to do that, but I should like to deal with it in my own order. I should like, if I may, to make this approach. I was dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals. I do not think that his second Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is already covered in the Bill, but, as he points out, that deals only with indictable offences tried summarily.
I think that it is certainly the case that there are summary offences, not triable on indictment, which cannot be sent forward for sentence by the superior courts in respect of which the magistrates' courts should have power to make

recommendations for deportation in the proper cases, and I give as examples of that repeated offences of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, brothel keeping and related offences of that character, repeated assaults, and, of course, under the Bill, the offence of returning to this country after deportation when admission has been refused is in itself a summary offence. If he has come back here and been convicted of that offence, it surely follows—I only say this in passing—that there should be power in a summary court to recommend deportation.
As has been stressed, it is a recommendation. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan said that if this procedure in the Bill were followed there would be very many more appeals. There may be by those who, when a deportation order is made, think that they have a chance of reversing it on appeal. There will be appeals in those cases, but in the other cases where the case for such an order is very strong—and I believe that magistrates up and down the country will give serious consideration to it before they make any such order—it may well be that the person convicted will not wish to appeal.
The alternative procedure suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman might well mean that in cases where it was thought right, if possible, to secure a deportation recommendation, the prosecution would ask for them to be committed for trial on indictment, when ordinarily, but for that limitation, they would have been content to have it dealt with summarily.
Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals we might get a greater clogging of the judicial machinery by the committal for trial of cases which would not now be committed. One has to set that off against the possible increase in the number of appeals, but one might almost say that it is as broad as it is long. One also has to take into account that where there is a committal for trial in the case suggested by the hon. and learned Member, or an appeal, there is always an interval between the committal and the first hearing and the appeal or the ultimate trial.
I assure the Committee that we have given considerable thought to this matter. We believe that the Bill is right


about it. It must be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Unless it comes within that category, there can be no recommendation by any court. I cannot think that there is any prospect of any court ever being asked to consider a recommendation unless it is a serious case by a man of bad character and I am sure that it would be carefully considered.
There is the complete appeal machinery before the matter ever comes to the Home Secretary. There can be appeal to the superior court. It is not the case that there is an appeal straight away to the Home Secretary, thus reducing the status of the court. It is not an order of a court of summary jurisdiction, but is a recommendation.
Bearing in mind that there are summary offences of the character to which I have referred in relation to which it might be thought desirable to make this recommendation, I believe that it is right to leave the Bill as it is. There are these safeguards of the right of appeal, which, with legal aid, can be readily exercised, and the additional safeguard that, no matter what the courts may recommend, there is the Home Secretary, who has to decide whether to act upon the recommendation. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to decide in a different field whether to act on recommendations.
There are those safeguards. Their existence does not make it necessary to impose the somewhat artificial restrictions which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North suggested or the suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, which is another way of arriving at the same end but would exclude from the possibility of a recommendation for deportation convictions for offences of the character which I have mentioned.
I have dealt shortly with this matter. It is an important question and I hope that the fact that I have dealt with it fairly shortly will not lead anyone to suppose that we have not given a great deal of thought to it. I shall give great thought to it between now and Report, but I am not making any promise of alteration. We will consider all that has been said in the course of the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was supported by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about seeking to insert an Amendment to exclude from liability for recommendation to deportation conviction for offences of a political character. Reference was made to the Extradition Act, 1870, which provides that a person shall not be extradited for a crime of a political character or if he shows that his extradition is sought to try or to punish him for such a crime.
There is no analogy between extradition from this country for a crime alleged to have been committed in another country and deportation from this country in relation to an offence committed against our law. In extradition cases, the crime has been committed in some other country, and it has traditionally been regarded as an important principle that where the fugitive can show that the offence with Which he is charged, or of which he has been convicted, in another country, was of a political character in the circumstances prevailing in that country, or that his surrender is sought in order to try to punish him for that crime, the country seeking his return should not be able to use the extradition procedure in order to lay hands on him.
Under the provisions of the Bill, the deportation position is quite different. Here, the crime will have been committed in this country. If, for instance, an immigrant from the Commonwealth has been found guilty of sedition or of using violence, it is no answer under our law to say that he has done so for political ends and, in my view, there seems to be no inherent reason why, if he has committed against our law a crime of such a character as to warrant a recommendation for deportation, it should be possible for him to avoid that consequence by asserting that he committed it for political motives.
It does not follow, of course, that by committing what is called, or may be called, a political offence here an immigrant would be obnoxious in his own country, but if, on account of such an offence, he greatly feared to go home and had no reasonable chance of obtaining admission elsewhere, he would no doubt make representations to the Home Secretary that the court's recommendation should not be implemented on that


account, and I can assure the hon. Lady that if that were so the Home Secretary would give full weight to any such representations.
I shall not take up time in discussing the difficult question of defining precisely what is meant by "political offence"; that has been the subject of considerable discussion in various cases. I have listened with the greatest attention, and without interrupting them, to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that there is really any case for so applying the Extradition Act yardstick of offences of a political nature to offences committed in this country against the ordinary law of the land of such a serious character as would ordinarily warrant a recommendation for deportation as to make it impossible for the courts so to recommend because of a political tinge to the offence committed.
I think that I have now covered the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I do not for one moment expect that I have entirely satisfied them, but I hope that I have shown them that we have given serious consideration to their views, and that I have advanced reasons which they will recognise have some cogency.

Mr. H. Hynd: I have listened to the discussion with mixed feelings. This is the first time I have taken part in the debates on the Bill, but I have been particularly interested for some time in the question of deportation. I am not against the principle of deportation. I have had the unfortunate experience with having had to deal with a few, a very few, cases in which Commonwealth and Irish citizens were involved in which I felt that, in non-indictable cases, the country would not suffer very greatly if the culprits were not living here.
Having said that, I must add that I have been a little disturbed by the attitude of the Attorney-General in turning down all the suggestions that have been made. A fairly strong case has been made out by some of my hon. Friends for an easement in these arrangements. The Home Secretary has pointed out the technical difficulties in regard to indictable and non-indictable offences, but I should have thought that he would have been impressed at least by the suggestion that it should be possible for the

lay magistrates' court to send forward a case to quarter sessions or assize, as the case might be, in the same way as they send forward a case with a recommendation for Borstal training, leaving it to the court of quarter sessions to make the actual recommendation.
9.15 p.m.
I should have thought that that would have been the easiest way out of this difficulty and would commend itself to the Attorney-General. I hope that even now the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider introducing more suitable words at a later stage, perhaps in another place. He must have been impressed by the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the importance of this and the general feeling that deportation, being such a heavy punishment, should be handled in the most careful way possible.
I should be the last to suggest that the lay magistrates' court is not qualified to reach proper decisions. I would go so far as to say that it should not be left to that court but that the court of quarter sessions should be the lowest body to make the decision. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: When I spoke earlier I mentioned my difficulty in following the way in which the Home Secretary replies to Amendments. On occasions I have rather felt that the right hon. Gentleman's suave method of approach leaves considerable doubt in the minds of those who have been listening to him. But we never suffer from that disability when the Attorney-General is replying. However, the only sign of grace which the right hon.
and learned Gentleman has shown on this Amendment is that he has said that he will consider the matter between now and Report. I hope that that consideration will "Bring forth fruits and meet for repentance".
I do not know whether the Attorney-General has ever been a magistrate and has sat in a court of petty sessions. I have had long experience of that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could not dream of courts doing some things. I have often had bad dreams after spending many hours dealing with colleagues on the bench when


they have been dealing, first, with the question of the verdict and, secondly, of the sentence.
One of the difficulties is this. Some hon. Members will know of courts in which it all depends on which rota one finds oneself as to the decision one will get when the magistrates retire. I had to deal with clerks and not magistrates. Magistrates are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, who is a lawyer of great eminence, while the clerks are left to the Home Secretary, who may be a non-legal person. The Home Secretary is then dealing with the attitude of legal persons, and I could never discover when a clerk complained what he was complaining about. We should be quite certain that before a recommendation is made it comes before a court of sufficient eminence to entitle the recommendation to very serious consideration by the Home Secretary. I am not saying that the recommendation even of a court of quarter session or of assize is final. In this country the responsibility for deportation falls on one man alone, the Home Secretary, who has to sign personally every deportation order. I know that on occasion it is very difficult because he does not have the advantage of hearing the case. He has to judge from the paper which goes to him. I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that to hear a case is a far surer guide than reading the papers of the evidence and sometimes of the submissions of counsel.
The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is well worth considering from that point of view. Let us be certain that we have got the recommendation of a court likely to give a responsible decision, and not rely on the recommendation of a court which, even in the area for which it has responsibility, may vary according to the people who are sitting on a particular day.
I fully acknowledge the conscientious work that is done by most lay magistrates; but, after all, they are only ordinary human beings who very often have to deal with very complicated and difficult cases. I should feel more happy if an Amendment on the lines of that of

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North were included in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I have given the reasons why I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has chosen the correct yardstick for dividing the different types of cases. I have also said that I would certainly consider all that has been said in the course of this debate.
This is not a party or political issue, and views have been expressed from many quarters of the Committee with great sincerity. At the moment, I do not feel convinced that an improvement can be found in what is now in the Bill. I gave the reasons why we think it necessary that there should be a power of deportation in relation to what are simply summary offences. But I take the point which has been made by many hon. Members opposite that they think that the decision whether there should be a recommendation for deportation should be made by a higher court than the magistrates' court. I will give consideration to that point.
I am not in a position now to give any undertaking to make any change on Report, but I will undertake to give it very serious consideration before Report. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would do; nor would the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).

Mr. Weitzman: I thank the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the obviously thoughtful and considerate reply that he has given. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a very important matter, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give weight to everything that has been said from these benches. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twenty-four months".

The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment can be discussed those in


page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "two"; and to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" without a Division being called on the latter.

Mr. Fletcher: Clause 7 (2) provides that no recommendation for deportation shall be made upon the conviction of any offender who satisfies the court both that he was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the date of his conviction and also that he had been continuously so resident for a period of five years ending on that date.
The object of the Amendment is to substitute the period of two years for five years and to give complete protection against deportation to people who have been resident in this country for a period of two years. This, like all the other Amendments that we on this side have tabled, is intended as a liberalising Amendment to protect people who, in words that have become accepted, belong to this country.
We think that if a person has established himself here as a resident for a couple of years, even though he may commit an offence for which he could be punished by imprisonment or fine like any other British subject, or, indeed, for that matter any alien or anybody resident here, he should, as a member of the Commonwealth, have the same protection against deportation as a natural-born British subject or anyone else who has made this country his home. We do not want these novel and, as we think, undesirable provisions for deportation to be any more extensive than is really necessary to meet the case in point.
We want to eliminate as far as possible the difference between citizens of the United Kingdom who are here as a result of birth or immigration and those who are in the category of people who are differentiated against and discriminated against by the provisions of the Bill. We think that, if a person has been here two years, that it is sufficient to give him protection against deportation. We feel Mat this extreme remedy of deportation could only be justified and should only be used in extreme circumstances. It is quite obvious that this will not affect the remedy of deportation in respect of those persons who come here illicitly or illegally under the Bill—people who come here without a proper voucher or

who escape the net of the immigration officer and about whom it might be said afterwards that they had committed an offence by coming here without proper permission under Clause 2.
Presumably, anybody of that kind would be caught within two years. Therefore, this provision will affect only those Commonwealth immigrants who have been here for some substantial time and who may, like any other citizen, commit an offence which exposes them to the treatment, remedial and reformative, of the criminal law. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it reasonable to accept the Amendment as giving all the security and protection that is needed in the circumstances.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: Several of my hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment in page 6, line 18, to make the period ten years instead of five. This has not been selected but is debatable now. Of course, I strongly oppose any reduction in the qualifying period of residence.
It has been said that the provisions of the Bill are very widely drawn in regard to the deportation of persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment, but clearly the purpose of the Bill is to deal with certain types of crime. It has been said, and I agree, that Commonwealth immigrants as a whole are not more likely to commit crimes than ordinary citizens of this country, but there are certain crimes which may be the subject of deportation to which immigrants are particularly prone.
I will give the Committee certain figures in relation to the number of persons convicted of living on immoral earnings in the Metropolitan area of London in 1960. During that year, there were 130 convictions for living on immoral earnings, and of those no less than 68, more than half, were attributable to immigrants from the Commonwealth or from the Republic of Ireland. The proportion is very large having regard to the insignificant proportion which the number of immigrants bears to the total population.
If the Amendment now proposed were accepted it would mean that any person who had been convicted already of the


crime of living on immoral earnings could be subjected only to the disadvantage of adding to the qualifying period of two years which has been suggested the period for which he has been in prison for an offence which, under the Bill, will render him subject to deportation. Even under the Clause as it now stands, a person who has during the last year come out of prison after having served a sentence of one year for a crime which would in the normal way subject him to deportation under the Bill will only have to add to the period of five years the period of one year's imprisonment which he has served. If the Clause goes through as it stands it will mean that he could come out of prison just before the coming into force of the Bill, repeat the crime within six months and be free from the penalty of deportation.
If the Amendment moved by the Opposition were accepted the period would be further reduced. It would mean that if a person had been in prison for one year for living on immoral earnings, a crime which would subject him to deportation, that year would be added to the two suggested in the Amendment and if he had been in the country for three years altogether and committed the crime again within the next few months after the passage of the Bill he would be entirely free from the deportation provisions. I regard that as entirely wrong. I very much regret that it has not been possible to debate an Amendment which would extend the period of residence, but I most certainly ask the Committee to reject the Amendment now before it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends not only on their good sense in putting the Amendment down, but on their ingenuity in framing it. They were in an obvious difficulty. I have put down an Amendment, one of the Amendments we are discussing now, to leave out "five", that is to say, five years, and to insert "two", that is to say, two years.
I have the greatest possible sympathy with my right hon. and hon. Friends. They were in a dilemma. Either they could support my Amendment in the

Lobby or in debate and subject themselves to a certain—I do not know quite what, but something they appear to dislike—but do it nevertheless because they knew that the Amendment was a good one which commended itself to them, or they could oppose or fail to support an important Amendment to a Bill to which they attach great importance merely because of—again I do not know quite what, but something or other which would have inhibited them in some way.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know why my hon. Friend assumes that we had any knowledge of his Amendment when ours was tabled.

Mr. Silverman: I assume it because it was tabled first. Its position on the Notice Paper supports that assumption. I also point to the rather unusual, although I admit ingenious—I congratulate my hon. Friends on their ingenuity—form in which the Amendment is framed. The Clause does not talk about months. It talks about years. If the suggestion is to delete "five years" and to substitute, not "two years", but "twenty-four months", I have sufficient respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends to believe that they must have thought that there was adequate reason for this unusual form of words. If we put the two things together, the result is irresistible, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is concerned to resist it.
However, out of the respect which I have for the judgment and ingenuity of my hon. Friends, I tell them at once that the form of Amendment which they have tabled imposes no difficulty on me. I am in no dilemma. I come to the conclusion that, although there may be some difference between twenty-four months and two years, it is not a difference which will part me from my hon. Friends, although the converse of that proposition does not seem to be true. We are, therefore, on the same side.
This is a part of the Bill on which the Government can be congratulated rather more than they can be congratulated on other parts of the Bill. It is one of the less barbarous proposals—I will not say more civilised, because I can see nothing civilised in the whole


Bill. It recognises that, if a Commonwealth citizen is of established residence in this country, then a power to deport him which might well be thought to be properly exercisable in the case of a man of a shorter period of residence ought not to be applied.
Therefore, the only question between the two sides of the Committee, having united this side so that there are only two sides instead of three, is: what is the period of continuous residence which should be deemed sufficient to protect a man from deportation? In the opinion of the Government, the period should be five years. In the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, if he will allow me to put it in my language rather than in his, it should be two years.
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments so forcibly and eloquently adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, but I wish to add one argument which he did not use, but which, I think, will commend itself to him, nevertheless. I tabled an Amendment in which I proposed that the minimum age for deportation should be 25 years. Some of my hon. Friends, though agreeing with me in principle, thought that 25 was too old and that 21 would be a better age. Indeed, there was much to be said for their point of view. What we all agreed about was that 17 was too young.
If five years is retained instead of two years, in the case of young persons it increases the hardship and underlines the undesirability of deporting young persons. If a person is, shall I say, 25, and is ordinarily resident in this country on the day when he commits a punishable offence and has been ordinarily resident here for the five years ending on that day, he is absolutely protected from deportation—that is to say, if he has been in residence here from the age of 20 to the age of 25 or longer than that. However, if it is a young person aged 17½—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) made a similar point in another connection—he is not protected from deportation, unless he has lived in this country from the age of 12.
If the Ministers representing the Home Office would look at the Amendment from the point of view of young persons, I think they would see that there is a strong case for accepting it, even if they are not prepared to go further and accept the period of two years for everybody. There is a further stage of the Bill and I think I have said enough to indicate the kind of proposition I would like them to consider. I do not think that I shall improve the case by adding further arguments to it.

Lieut. - Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I feel some diffidence in joining this battle between the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but as they now seem to have patched up their differences I want to say that I and my hon. Friends who have tabled the Amendment to page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" have no doubt that we absolutely disagree with the Amendments moved by both of them.
Like the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), who spoke recently, this is the first time that I have spoken during the course of this Bill, but that is not my fault. However, I have listened to the Amendments which have been proposed and it has seemed to me that nearly all of those proposed in opposition to the Bill have come from the heart rather than from the head. I do not know where this Amendment has come from. I do not think that it can possibly have come from either heart or head.
Who would benefit if the Amendment were accepted? The only people who would benefit are the small number of immigrant criminals. They are only a small number, but they have an adverse effect on the standing of their own people in this country which few hon. Members opposite appear to understand. The majority of Amendments proposed during the course of the Committee stage have obviously been proposed with the idea that they would, if accepted, strengthen the spirit of Commonwealth and benefit the immigrants now in this country and those yet to come. The Amendment, if accepted, would do the exact reverse.
I want to read an article which I have chosen quite casually from my local paper during the course of the last three weeks. It is a report which appeared in the Nottingham Guardian-Journal. It says:
A twenty-nine year old coloured man was drawing National Assistance and living on the immoral earnings of his wife, it was alleged in Nottingham Guildhall yesterday. He was"—
the name is given—
who was charged with living wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of"—
again a name is given—
between 13th July, 1961, and 4th January of this year.
9.45 p.m.
These cases, of course, are not all that numerous, but, nevertheless, they are, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), anything but isolated. These sort of cases are doing immeasurable harm to the general spirit of Commonwealth and race relations in the places where they occur, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen who perhaps have only a theoretical knowledge of these things that people who are Members for constituencies concerned and who also have lived in those constituencies throughout the period of immigration into this country do know just what effect they have on the population and, as I say, on race relations generally.
The deportation of people of that sort can do only good to the vast majority of people in this country, to the immigrants now here and the immigrants who are yet to come. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), speaking just now, said, "We want to reduce to the minimum the power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens", and he spoke in a way which suggested, I think, that obviously everybody, on both sides of the Committee, agreed with him. Personally, I do not. I think that the powers of deportation need strengthening, in the way proposed in the Amendment to page 6, line 18, put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale and several others of us.
I am sure that that is the view of responsible Commonwealth leaders, and in that connection I should like to quote a statement made recently by somebody

whom nobody can accuse of being wildly enthusiastic about this Bill, Mr. Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, who came over here to look into things in the summer of last year. He said this, when interviewed, and I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 12th June, 1961:
I would have no objection to the British Government sending back home people guilty of the sort of crimes which bring good West Indians into disrepute in this country.
He went on:
The Jamaican Government is refusing passports to West Indians after conviction for offences unless there is a long period of good behaviour since.
He also said:
Nobody with two convictions for dishonesty can get a passport at all.
There is no doubt what Mr. Manley thinks about this, and in that connection he is certainly very much in advance of the Irish Government. I think that that is relevant to this case, because, as hon. Members may know, it has been the practice of the Irish judiciary recently, when dealing with cases in their criminal courts, to suspend the sentences on convicted persons, citizens of the Irish Republic, provided they come to live in this country. I think that hon. Members will obviously be glad to know that in this part of the Bill the Irish are treated exactly the same as all members of the Commonwealth.
That being so, I really cannot see what possible objection of any sort hon. Members opposite can have to this part of the Bill. I simply cannot understand why they want to weaken it. If they do, they do an undoubted disservice to the spirit of Commonwealth. The Bill does not want weakening, as this Amendment would certainly weaken it. It wants strengthening. I hope very much, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not for a moment consider—as, indeed, I am sure he will not—accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I support what my hon. Friends have said, and particularly the last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieutenant-Colonel Cordeaux) about the Irish judiciary deliberately exporting criminals and the undesirability of having criminals here when it would do much greater service to the


cause of the integration of immigrants if they could be deported.
I have not yet heard anyone say that he is opposed to this deportation Clause. I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in smiling, is not treating the matter lightly. I hope that he is with us and agrees with Mr. Manley that criminals should not be exported to Britain.

Mr. Chapman: I agree entirely. I was smiling about something quite different.

Mr. Gurden: I am glad to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State ought seriously to consider this period of ten years.

Mr. Weitzman: Why not make it twenty, or why limit it at all?

Mr. Gurden: Very well, let it be twenty years if the Committee wishes. There seems to be no sense at all in having people here who are habitual criminals. Those people who have been here for five or six years and who are habitual criminals ought not to get away with this advantage over other immigrants who have recently come here. If it is fair for one criminal to be deported it ought to apply to others. Those who have been here for some time now will certainly have a start over those who will be coming in the future.

Mr. Weitzman: Would the hon. Member please tell the Committee why he wants to limit this period to ten years?

Hon. Members: No answer.

Mr. Renton: The Bill says that there shall be no deportation after five years' residence, not counting periods of six months or more spent in prison. The Opposition, both the official Opposition and the anti-party, would like the five years reduced to two years. My hon. Friends would like the period increased to ten years. It looks, therefore, as though the Government have been right to have steered a middle course between the two extremes. This is a matter of opinion and judgment, bearing in mind that we are here dealing with people who have abused our hospitality by breaking our law. I remind the

Committee that the period of five years' residence is not the only way of escaping deportation, but I need not cover points made on earlier Amendments. We have to use our judgment and discretion in the matter, in the light of such experience as has been obtained elsewhere.
In that connection we need to bear in mind that five years is the equivalent period of residence in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I must tell my hon. Friends that it could not be more than five years because, as will be seen from Clause 12, the deportation provisions cannot be made effective against the citizens of most independent Commonwealth countries without altering the British Nationality Act, 1948, which requires only one year's residence by a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country before he is entitled to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies and thereby escape deportation.

Mr. N. Pannell: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have put down a very sensible Amendment which will remove the objection to which he is referring.

Mr. Renton: I am not at liberty to discuss a later Amendment which is not being called at this time, but I stress that five years is the utmost that we could possibly justify in extending that qualifying period.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman was saying a few minutes ago that the Government were probably right because they had taken a middle path between the two years that we on these benches have suggested and the ten years suggested by his hon. Friends. It now appears that it was not a middle path at all. It was the furthest that the Government could go. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile that?

Mr. Renton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a point which is superficially telling but not fundamentally material.
I must complete my reply to my hon. Friend, who deserves the courtesy of a reply. It follows from what I have said that the Amendment of my hon. Friends would be fully effective only against people from the Colonies and from those


few independent countries of the Commonwealth which allow dual citizenship, because other Commonwealth citizens could after five years' residence here escape deportation by registering.
We come, therefore, to the question whether it should be two years or five years. Perhaps I might say in passing that the official Opposition, deriving inspiration from the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman), appear to agree with us in principle that there should be a longer period than one year, but they consider that two years would be long enough.
There seems to be general support for the proposition that we should take power to deport. We feel that the power should last for longer than the first two years that anyone is here. Otherwise it is hardly worth having the power at all. I would remind those hon. Members who are worried about hard cases that the courts are not hound to recommend deportation, and when deciding whether to do so or not, they will no doubt consider, among other things, the length of time that the defendant has resided here. They will also, no doubt, consider the age of the defendant.
There is a further safeguard in that, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out on the previous Amendment, it is the Home Secretary himself who in every single case has to take the final responsibility, and it is a personal one, before he allows a recommendation to be acted upon. Also, of course, he is answerable to the House. He would, naturally, pay regard to any compassionate features that a case might have.
With these factors in mind, and acknowledging that this is a matter of judgment, we feel that five years is the right period. It is surely likely to be appropriate in most cases. If there are cases in which the person has been here for less than five years, and yet it would seem very hard to deport him, I think we may rely on the courts and the Home

Secretary of the day not to take this vigorous step if it seems appropriate not to do so.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to pursue this matter unduly. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it is really a matter of judgment. The Government's judgment is that the right period is five years, and our judgment is that it should be two years. Some hon. Members opposite think that the period should be ten years. Their view is that as many criminals as possible should be deported. They think that the right cure for crime is to deport criminals. I have no doubt that they would like to deport all immigrant criminals.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) would have liked the period to be 20 years. That was the logic of his argument. The whole burden of his argument was that the best way to deal with those immigrants who commit a crime is to deport them, because one then puts an end to their career of crime. It is an easy solution to say that the more immigrant criminals one can deport the better, hut that is not the solution which commends itself to the Government or the Opposition.
We feel that this remedy of deportation is a most extreme and serious sanction, only to be used in extreme cases, and that the House ought not to legislate to give the Government that power except where it is absolutely necessary, because in so far as the power of deportation is given as a recommendation of the courts to the Government, one introduces a further discrimination between British subjects and immigrants from the Commonwealth who have in other respect equal rights. I hope that the Committee will support our view in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That "five years" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 164.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Allason, James
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Black, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Clive


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Ronald
Bourne-Arton, A.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Biffen, John
Box, Donald




Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hobson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitman, Sir James


Brewis, John
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hopkins, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Brooman-White, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Buck, Antony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullus Wing Commander Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pym, Francis


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L,
Ramsden, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Chichester-Clark, R,
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cleaver, Leonard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.
Russell, Ronald


Collard, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Leavey, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leburn, Gilmour
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speir, Rupert


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Curran, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Deedes, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Tapsell, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Donaldson Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Temple, John M.


Eden, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Errington Sir Eric
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farr, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turner, Colin


Finlay, Graeme
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Manningham-Buller, Rt, Hn. Sir R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Freeth, Denzil
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gilmour, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter


Goodhart Philip
Mills, Stratton
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Morgan, William
Webster, David


Green, Alan
Morrison, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, William


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Gerald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wise, A. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hay, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woollam, John


Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Partridge, E.



Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Peel, John
Mr. Michael Hamilton and


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian
Mr. McLaren.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth





NOES


Ainsley, William
Blyton, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Chapman, Donald


Awbery, Stan
Bowles, Frank
Cliffe, Michael


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cronin, John


Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Fenner
Crosland, Anthony


Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.
Darling, George







Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Deer, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, John
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Dodds, Norman
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Edward


Donnelly, Desmond
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ede, Ht. Hon. C.
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Fitch, Alan
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, Thomas


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mapp, Charles
Stones, William


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Swain, Thomas


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Symonds, J. B.


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, w. (Exchange)
Monslow, Walter
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
Wade, Donald


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
Warbey, William


Healey, Denis
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John
Whitlock, William


Hilton, A. V.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Frederick


Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)


Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry



Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. McCann.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(PROCEDURE AND APPEALS IN RESPECT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.)

The Chairman: With the next Amendment, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven", the following Amendments may be discussed: In page 6, line 39, to leave out "days" and to insert "weeks".
In page 7, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven".
The Clause deals with the question of the notice which has to be given to the subject of a detention order.

The Chairman: Order. It is very difficult to hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr, MacColl: This Clause provides that no recommendation for deportation

should be made in respect of an offender unless notice has been given to him of the intention to make the recommendation. In the Clause as drafted the period of notice is three days. The Amendment is a moderate and conciliatory one. It is perhaps too modest. It suggests merely the substitution of seven days for three days. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his first Amendment suggests a period of three weeks.
Like so many questions, it is one of judgment and balancing what is most convenient, and I am not quarrelling about a day or two. I am quarrelling with the proposal in the Bill that three days' notice should be given. This is much too short. This point was touched on when we were discussing the burden of proof, and the fact that the Government have rejected our attempts to shift the burden of proof from the offender on to the Crown strengthens the case for increasing the period of notice, because an offender will suddenly find himself


faced with three days' notice that the Crown is going to ask for a recommendation that he should be deported, and this, as has been said time and again during the proceedings, is an extremely serious matter.
To decide whether or not he is to be deported, he has to establish whether he is or is not a Commonwealth citizen, and whether his period of residence in the country, and so on, excludes him from the provisions of the Bill. All this may take a considerable amount of research, to put it at its lowest. He may find that he has no birth certificate. In spite of the Attorney-General saying that no good man ever had any difficulty in establishing his nationality, I do not think that this is correct. Sometimes it can be extremely difficult for somebody quickly to find his birth certificate. It happens even in this country. A person may be fondly under the impression that he was born in the north of Scotland, but was in fact born in the south of England—ibis mother may have made a quick journey south without it being entered in the family record. A person may be under the impression that he was born in this country, but is not sure, and establishing it as a fact may involve a considerable amount of research.
10.15 p.m.
It also happens that people are registered under a different name from that by which they have been known. A person who has been known as Brown, for example, may find when he gets his birth certificate that his name is Jones. This means that it becomes more and more difficult to obtain the necessary facts and documents to establish whether one should be deported.
Earlier, the Attorney-General tried to brush off this argument. He said that if three days' notice was not long enough an adjournment could be obtained to collect the evidence. It is a sloppy approach to the problem to specify a thoroughly impracticable period of three days and then to say that the procedure can be made to work because people will apply for an adjournment if they want it. We are dealing with an important issue, the liberty of the subject and the right of

a person to resist deportation. Therefore, we should lean over to give as long and as full notice as is necessary to enable people to establish their case against the recommendation for deportation.
In many cases, particularly those dealt with at magistrates' courts, it may happen that people are not legally represented. The Attorney-General is not limiting liability to indictable offences, because he wants to catch also some trivial offences which may occur more than once. He spoke, for example, of soliciting. It is well known that in magistrates' courts ladies who are charged with soliciting frequently are not represented when they come before the court. Out of the blue, they will be liable to get a notice that they are to be threatened with deportation. Then, they must try to get legal advice on whether they are subject to the provisions of the Act. To suggest that they can do this in three days is wholly impracticable. To suggest that in three days they can even find a legal representative who will appear for them and ask for an adjournment may not always be practicable.
If there is a question of applying for an adjournment, what is to be the position in areas where magistrates' courts do not meet every day? In my constituency, the court normally meets weekly. Therefore, if notice of intention to secure a recommendation for deportation is served on a Monday and on Tuesday the unfortunate victim obtains a solicitor and gets advice, how is the solicitor to make application for the adjournment? To whom is he to make it if the court does not sit until the following Monday? These are some of the practical difficulties which are involved in this matter and I suggest that the Government should therefore consider extending the period of notice.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was very kind to me in some remarks earlier this evening. I hope to be able to reciprocate that kindness now, but a period of three days is not as disreputable as he may think. There is a good precedent in a comparable case in the 1948 Criminal Justice Act, for which his party was largely responsible. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made his case with his usual persuasive force, and I should


like to tell him and the Committee that, subject to some difficulty, we hope to be able to meet him on this point at the next stage of the Bill. Seven days is obviously better than three.
There is the difficulty that in many cases it may be that if we give a minimum period of this sort offenders who do not wish to contest the issue, or something like that, will be kept waiting longer than they otherwise would. The case is, therefore, not quite so obvious as the hon. Member suggests. However, he has made his case, and I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we look upon it with great favour, and hope to meet him on this issue at the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to detain the Committee, particularly in view of the offer that the Under-Secretary has made, but on this occasion, as when we discussed the last Amendment, there is a difference of opinion in two Amendments on the question of time. There is a much greater significance in the difference between seven days and three weeks than there was between twenty-four hours and two years, but it seems to me that my hon. Friend, who made out so powerful and unanswerable a case for the langer time, may not quite have appreciated that it was a case against seven days almost as much as against three.
The Committee having decided to keep the onus of proof on the defendant, we do not really make the position very much better by adding four more days, and I hope that when the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at this between now and the Report stage he will look at it from that point of view as well.

Mr. MacColl: For the second evening running I find my persuasive powers after ten o'clock seem to be greater than before ten o'clock. If it were possible for my Amendments always to be discussed after ten o'clock I might get somewhere. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP BY REGISTRATION ETC.)

Mr. N. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "Act" to insert:
or any person who, not having received a free pardon has been, in any country, convicted of an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment has been passed and who, for this reason, is deemed by the Home Secretary to be an undesirable immigrant".
In the very short time at my disposal it is not possible to deploy my original argument, but I would point out that the Clause as it now stands gives the right of citizenship to any immigrant who is not actually subject to a deportation order at the time that he makes his application. If, prior to his application, he has been guilty of an offence which, under the provisions of this Measure, would make him liable to deportation he can still become a United Kingdom citizen.
That is entirely wrong and anomalous. We take power in Clause 2 to exclude from this country immigrants believed to have committed certain crimes, yet here we give the right of United Kingdom citizenship to those immigrants convicted before the passing of the Bill of serious crimes which would make them subject to deportation. The main anomaly is that the Clause makes no provision for the qualifying period of five years to be extended by any period of imprisonment that the applicant may have served. Therefore, taking an extreme case, if he has been ordinarily resident in this country for five years and four of those years have been spent in prison for offences which under the Bill would be deemed to be offences liable to deportation, he will still be able to claim United Kingdom citizenship.
The absurd part of this is that a person who during several years of his qualifying period has spent so many years in prison is able to claim United Kingdom citizenship and is, thereafter, exempted from the provisions of the Bill regarding deportation. That is a ridiculous anomaly and I hope that the Government will consider the matter and ensure that no person is entitled to United Kingdom citizenship if he has at any time been convicted of an offence, either in this country or in any other country, which would normally come


under the provisions of the Bill and render him liable to deportation when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Thorpe: I merely wish to ask one question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). The words in the Amendment as drafted are "in any country", and I take it that the hon. Gentleman intends that for the purposes of the Bill an offence committed in another country for which the term of imprisonment has been served shall count for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case for deportation. Are we to take it, therefore, that any person who has, for example, been imprisoned under the emergency legislation in Ghana and has served four or five years in prison would, for that reason, be subject to deportation?

Mr. N. Pannell: The answer is contained in the last few words of the Amendment, when it states:
…who, for this reason, is deemed by the Home Secretary to be an undesirable immigrant".
This is a discretion placed on the Home Secretary and is similar to the other discretionary instances in the Bill.

Mr. Renton: We cannot accept the Amendment. It would seem that my hon. Friend wishes to create a new description of person, namely, an "undesirable immigrant". I feel hound to say that the power to describe people as undesirable immigrants after they have been here for five years and have not in that period been recommended for deportation and who are free to reside here indefinitely is not a power which the Home Secretary would wish to exercise.
At present any citizen of an independent Commonwealth country—I say Commonwealth country and not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because that does not apply—is entitled to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies after 12 months ordinary residence in this country. Clause 12 (2) increases that qualifying

period to five years but retains the entitlement to register.

The Amendment would mean that that entitlement would be taken away in the case of those immigrants who have served a sentence of imprisonment not merely in this country but, apparently, anywhere abroad. There are, I think, two main objections to the Amendment. The first is that the scheme of the British Nationality Act gives Commonwealth citizens an entitlement to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whereas aliens have no such entitlement but must satisfy mile Secretary of State that they are suitable for naturalisation.

The second objection is linked with this and is that any element of discretion involves inquiry, and if the procedure proposed in the Amendment were not to be totally capricious the Home Office would have to make inquiries about the record of every applicant for registration—and there are more than 600 of them a month at present—merely for the sake of refusing a very few criminals. The making of the necessary inquiries in the countries from which the people had come would greatly delay this process of obtaining registration. At present, it takes only a week or two and the work and expense would not be justified.

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO DETAINED PERSONS.)

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 238, Noes 166.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[10.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Biffen, John


Aitkon, W. T.
Barlow, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.


Allason, James
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Black, Sir Cyril


Arbuthnet, John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bossom, clive




Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Box, Donald
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brains, Bernard
Hobson, John
Pitman, Sir James


Brewis, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hollingworth, John
Pott, Percivall


Brooman-White, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Buck, Antony
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullard, Denys
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullub, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Jackson, John
Rees, Hugh


Channon, HP. G.
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cleaver, Leonard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Russell, Ronald


Collard, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Leather, E. H. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leavey, J. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Leburn, Gilmour
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Curran, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss8ide)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Eden, John
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemeley, Sir Colin


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Errington, Sir Eric
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Freeth, Denzil
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gardner, Edward
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marshall, Douglas
Walder, David


Gilmour, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mills, Stratton
Webster, David


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Montgomery, Furgus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffs, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Gerald
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Woollam, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.


Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Hiley, Joseph
Partridge, E.





NOES


Ainsley, William
Benson, Sir George
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Brockway, A. Fenner


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Awbery, Stan
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Beaney, Alan
Bowles, Frank
Chapman, Donald


Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James
Cliffe, Michael







Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Darling, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
King, Dr. Horace
Skeffington, Arthur


Donnelly, Desmond
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Evans, Albert
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmthn)
Mapp, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Gourlay, Harry
Msndelson, J. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, Dt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Monslow, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Moody, A. S.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hall Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold
Wade, Donald


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Warbey, William


Hart, Miss Judith
Oram, A. E.
Weitzman, David


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
White, Mrs. Eirene


Healey, Denis
Padley, W. E.
Whitlock, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, Frederick


Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, LI (Abertillery)


Holman, Percy




Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Weathoughton)
Woof, Robert


Hunter, A. E.
Probert, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hynd, John (Atterclilfe)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John
Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.


Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (LINEAR ACCELERATOR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I am glad to have the opportunity of pursuing further the unfortunate decision of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research not to provide funds for Glasgow University to proceed with the installation of its new linear accelerator. The best way in which I can summarise this matter is by quoting from Sir Hector Hetherington's valedictory letter to the graduates of Glasgow University which was published last September. This is what he said:
Some four years ago the Natural Philosophy Department realised that the useful life of its synchrotron would end about 1965, and that in any case its Research School had grown to a point at which even the synchrotron could not offer sufficient experimental facilities. With the knowledge of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, they embarked with Messrs. Vickers upon the design of a new linear accelerator which would enable
them to undertake work in an area of nuclear physics hitherto little explored anywhere and not at all in Great Britain. Four years' hard work have gone into the design: and all the proper requirements have been satisfied. Now, however, we hear that the Department, having preferred to spend its allocation on a less novel machine for Oxford, cannot until 1965 at the earliest finance this machine in Glasgow. The result is that when Glasgow (and Great Britain) might have been well ahead in this scientific enterprise, half a dozen other countries will have a handsome start, some of them with the aid of the Glasgow work.
Before going into the details, I should like to say that I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in replying to the debate, will not bring in the fact that recently we have had approved the installation of a nuclear reactor at East Kilbride for the use of Scottish Universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology. We are very glad to get this, and there is no doubt that it will be exceedingly valuable for the purposes of radiation chemistry, medical science and, to some extent, for nuclear engineers. But it has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing. It is quite a distinct matter

and, therefore, I hope that we shall not have it introduced. We are discussing something different, and that is the subject of nuclear physics machines.
As I understand, the present position is this. There are four proton accelerators in this country of the Van de Graaff type. There is one at Manchester, one at Liverpool, one at Harwell and one at Aldermaston—all comparatively small ones of 12 million electron volts. The new one that was awarded to Oxford, when the decision was made to refuse the machine to Glasgow, is a larger Van de Graaff machine, a very useful and valuable machine, but not one that introduced anything very novel. That is why Sir Hector Hetherington said that this machine was less novel than the machine for Glasgow.
In addition to that, we have one electron accelerator, and I understand that this is not a very good one. It is at Harwell and cost something like £500,000. In this sphere Great Britain is exceedingly badly off. The machine proposed to be installed by Glasgow was a 100 million electron volt machine, which was completely novel in many ways, and its purpose was to be able to experiment in an entirely new field of nuclear physics. I think most scientists have agreed, and even D.S.I.R. agreed, that it was a first-class machine. I mention this because it replies to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Science that, in the opinion of his noble Friend's scientific advisers on the Research Council, the Glasgow proposal, though good, was not rated as highly as the proposal which came from Oxford at the same time.
There was nothing very new or novel about the Oxford machine. It was the larger version of the machine already existing. But the machine for Glasgow was novel and new. Since it was proposed by Glasgow University, it has been copied in Canada, Mainz in Germany, and in the United States Bureau of Standards. I understand that other electron accelerators of the same type are under consideration in the United States of America. We could have led in this field, instead of which these other countries now lead.
There are, of course, to be two very much larger machines, one the Nimrod


machine, which is also to be at Harwell, and another one, the whereabouts of which we do not know at present. It seems to me to be clear from this that there is an undue concentration of these machines in the South, and I should have thought that the nuclear programme ought to be balanced. The programme in relation to university machines of this type should be balanced in the same way that national institute machines should fit into a balanced programme with the university machines and the international machine at Geneva. As to the availability and use of machines at universities, this seems to be unfair from a national point of view. We in Scotland have had to complain before about what we thought was the unfair distribution of research, but I understand that outside Scotland there is also great concern about this concentration in the South. From a national point of view, it does not seem to have been a good decision.
From what I have said with regard to the scientific value of the Glasgow machine, the decision not to provide funds to proceed with it would appear not to be a good one, because where we should have led we are now going to lag behind. So, in addition to not having been a good decision nationally, it seems to have been a bad decision scientifically.
It is a rather disastrous decision for Glasgow University and its physics department. Glasgow research students preparing their experiments already have to wait a considerable time to obtain use of the Glasgow machine, and the useful life of that machine will and in a year or two. The students will then have to take their experiments down to the National Physics Laboratory at Harwell 400 miles away. Oxford, which is to get a new machine, is about 10 miles from Harwell. Apparently, it was regarded as more inconvenient for research students at Oxford to travel 10 miles to the National Physics Laboratory than it will be for Glasgow students to travel 400 miles to the Laboratory. I cannot understand that.
What is the effect likely to be on Glasgow University? First, it seems to me to be fairly clear that isolated re

search departments like that at Glasgow should have their own domestic resources if they are to go on working in nuclear physics, if they are to go on feeding research institutes and industry with top scientists. The men produced in these departments are the top scientists, and whatever the position may be regarding other scientists, we are desperately short of these men.
What is likely to happen at Glasgow? Are students likely to go to Glasgow when they know that they have not got the equipment there and that if they want to carry out experimental and research work they will have to travel periodically to Harwell to the National Physics Laboratory to get it done? It must inevitably mean a decline in the number of students entering the department and also a decline in the quality of the students turned out from Glasgow University, and that is disastrous from the point of view of Glasgow University and from the point of view of the country.
The Minister for Science some time ago expressed his very great concern that universities should extend their research work. How do we square this with what has happened at Glasgow? Here is a first-class team of men who put this country on the map in this field, who produced an idea which led the world, an idea which has since been copied by other countries, an idea which would have enabled research to be carried out in spheres at present not covered. Yet the reward to those men for having undertaken this work at Glasgow University is to have had a considerable amount of frustration ever since the proposal was made and in the end to be told that we cannot proceed with it.
How does the Minister for Science expect to encourage research in universities if this type of treatment is to be meted out to those who show initiative, enterprise, ability, knowledge and all the other qualities that go to make up the scientist? It is not good enough.
I could have said a lot more but I think I have given the facts. I simply say in conclusion that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this matter and the whole programme again. It is not good enough to say, as he did in reply to Questions, that he must accept


the views of the scientists on these matters. Of course we must pay attention to them, but the Minister has an overall responsibility to ensure that we obtain the best results from what is being done. I must say that this decision has caused very considerable concern among those who are connected with this matter in Scotland. There is a feeling—to put it at its lowest—that this decision was not made on scientific grounds but for quite other reasons.
The Minister for Science has a responsibility to see that money spent on research—money which is provided by the taxpayers—is used to the best advantage of the nation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, in view of the criticisms I have made, to look at this matter again and see whether he cannot give to Glasgow University what it thoroughly deserves—the earliest possible permission to carry on with the installation of this machine.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has done a first-class job in bringing this case before the House. I do not want to add very much to what he has said, except that the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware by now of the grave disappointment created in Scotland by the decision not to allow Glasgow University to go ahead with this work. Some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and others of my colleagues raised this matter with the Minister for Science. He told us that what he would like to see was a considerable improvement in research in Scotland in this field.
It is not very encouraging to find that this university, which has a first-class record in this regard, should then have had to face a decision of this kind. We are not going to have this research work carried on in Scotland if we are to be denied the right to have the very latest instruments. Not only has the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that question, but he must take the matter a little further and tell us what the Government's policy is on research. Is it to be concentrated in the South, or is the rest of the country to have a share? Scot

land will want to know what part the Minister expects us to play.
Our record in Scotland is one that can only be described as first-class—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will take no exception to that statement. But if we are to go ahead, we have to be equipped no less than the establishments he has been supporting in the South. We shall expect the hon. Gentleman to tell us what part he and his Department expect Scotland to play in this field in the future.

10.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The decision by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which has the full support of my noble Friend, not to make a grant to Professor Dee in response to his application for a 100 MeV linear accelerator costing approximately £600,000 has been the subject of some public comment. It is, therefore, on balance a good thing that I now have, through the courtesy of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who asked a question on this subject on 5th December last, the opportunity to put the whole matter in perspective.
I should first like to clear the decks, so to speak, of one or two side issues which have crept into the controversy. As the House will be aware, the D.S.I.R. gives research grants to universities in response to applications made by scientists for specific projects. In the last four years the Department's expenditure in this field has increased some five-fold, and during the current financial year is expected to reach about £2½ million. This is a very steep rate of increase, and certainly disproves the allegation that the Government are not wholeheartedly behind a policy of encouraging scientific research in the universities.
It is sometimes suggested—indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) hinted at it—that the D.S.I.R.'s support for research in universities is heavily weighted in favour of England as against Scotland. I have been fully into these criticisms. During the last two years the proportion of applications for research grants under £100,000, received from both Scottish scientists on the one hand and English and Welsh


scientists on the other, which were approved by the D.S.I.R., was virtually the same in each case, the figure being in the region of 80 per cent.
Hon. Members will realise that grants can be made only to those who apply for them. It is no fault of the research councils that all of them have found that the proportion of applications for grants coming from Scottish Universities is low in relation to that from England and Wales. This one regrets, but the remedy does not lie in the hands of the Government.
I mentioned the figure of £100,000 because this is at the present time the dividing line between minor and major grants. It was, of course, for a major grant that Professor Dee applied, and in considering such grants special considerations must also arise in view of their cost and importance, in addition to those which obtain with minor grants of under that figure.
These grants are for major items of research equipment such as it would be impossible to provide for every university in the two kingdoms. It is important, therefore, to ensure that, in view of their high cost and the fact that relatively few of them can be awarded, they should be selected primarily on grounds of scientific quality and should offer the greatest possible scope for the acquisition of fresh scientific knowledge.
At the present time D.S.I.R. is supporting five new major projects. All of them are in the field of nuclear physics, that is, the same field in which Professor Dee's project falls. At the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Oxford three particle accelerators are being built for which the D.S.I.R. is giving total grants of over £1·5 million. In addition, two grants have been given for a bubble chamber and associated equipment far co-operative ventures by seven universities of which Glasgow is one, the grants being administered on their behalf by the Imperial College in London.
The total of these two grants is just under £800,000. Further, the D.S.I.R. has recently announced support for three major projects on which construction will start in the near future. Two of these are in the field of radio-astronomy and total some £750,000. In

addition, a low-energy nuclear reactor—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for both research and teaching, to be shared jointly by the four Scottish universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology at Glasgow, will cost a further £450,000.
In deciding which major projects to support, the D.S.I.R. has to consider, first and foremost, the scientific merits of the project and the likely scientific benefits which will be obtained from it; and, secondly, the balance of its support in those fields of science for which it, by Act of Parliament, under my noble Friend, is financially responsible.
Of course, when other types of scientific projects are under consideration, such as might substantially affect the employment situation in the area where they are placed or might have a direct impact on the industrial situation, other than purely scientific considerations must be taken into account. But for the major research project it is the scientific considerations which are paramount.
Let me relate the history of Professor Dee's application. First, I would make it quite clear that it was an application for a machine for pure scientific research with no direct industrial application. Nor was it an application which could be regarded as teaching equipment in any generally understood sense of the term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. It was an application formally made to the D.S.I.R.. in early 1960, and during the months that followed it was considered on no less than three occasions by the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee of the Research Grants Committee of the Council. This subcommittee is composed of leading scientists in the discipline of nuclear physics. These eminent persons considered very thoroughly the scientific merits of Professor Dee's proposals, and whether the results which were likely to be forthcoming and the possibility of a new field of knowledge being opened justified the substantial expense which the project would entail.
By the end of 1960 the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the Research Grants Committee that Professor Dee's project should be supported in principle. But


the Research Grants Committee had not only to consider Professor Dee's proposal, and other proposals in the realm of nuclear physics, but also proposals from the other fields of scientific research in the light of the balance of scientific effort in this country, and, of course, in relation to the funds that could be made available by the Department for such investment in the light of the needs for national economy.
The House will recall that a moment or two ago I drew attention to the fact that the D.S.I.R. was already supporting five major projects in the nuclear physics field. With all these facts in mind, the Research Grants Committee recommended early last year that of further grants first priority should go to radio astronomy. During the summer, it agreed to support five major projects, of which three have recently been authorised, two in radio astronomy and one low energy nuclear reactor. The other two have, unfortunately, had to be deferred for the time being. These are the research reactors for the London and Midland Universities.

Mr. George Lawson: rose——

Mr. Freeth: I have very little time and much to say.

Mr. Lawson: rose——

Mr. Freeth: I cannot give way. I am going to finish this section of my speech.

Mr. Lawson: That is not the answer.

Mr. Freeth: If the hon. Member will sit down, he may find the answer in the remaining minutes that I have to speak.
On 5th December, I was assailed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for continually repeating, as he put it, the phrase, "My noble Friend must accept the opinion of the experts". That comment was echoed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tonight. I am, however, quite certain that I was right to emphasise and to repeat such a phrase. Scientific decisions can be taken only by scientists. Neither my noble Friend nor I is qualified to assess the scientific merits of Professor Dee's project. These must be decided by nuclear physicists—and they were. It would be quite wrong for my noble Friend to override his

scientific advisers on the scientific priorities of different applications. It would also be contrary to the spirit of the D.S.I.R. Act.
But my noble Friend has, of course, a duty to assure himself that his scientific advisers consider every aspect of the project and give their advice in all good faith. That they have done so in this case he is completely satisfied. The fact, however, remains that the scientists on the Research Grants Committee, although accepting that Professor Dee's project was one worthy of support, did not feel able in the scientific interests of the nation to place Professor Dee's project among the five to which last July they announced support. My noble Friend can find no reason for reversing this decision, and, if it were reversed, it would have to be done on grounds quite other than those which, as Minister for Science, he is entitled to take into account.
On 5th December, it was suggested by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that there was a choice between Glasgow University and Oxford University and that the D.S.I.R. chose Oxford rather than Glasgow. This is, of course, as I said then, quite inaccurate. Professor Wilkinson's project for a 20 MeV Tandem Van de Graaff accelerator was considered by 'the D.S.I.R. as a project on its own. Professor Wilkinson's application was received before Professor Dee's application for a grant for a machine of a rather different character, and approval in principle was given to it by the Research Council in January, 1960, whereas Professor Dee's formal application was not made until a month later. At that time it was uncertain whether D.S.I.R.'s planned expenditure would be able to finance the Oxford project and approval was delayed on this account. It was, of course, also essential fully to consider where the equipment was to be sited and what facilities should be granted for other research workers to use so expensive an item of equipment. This was why the grant to Professor Wilkinson was not announced until May, 1961.
To some extent, therefore, consideration of these two projects has run in parallel, but it is important to emphasise that both the Nuclear Physics Sub-committee and the Research Grants Committee of the D.S.I.R. were never in any


doubt whatsoever that on scientific merit Professor Wilkinson's project was to be preferred. They differed from Sir Hector Hetherington on that account. They never had any doubts about proceeding with Professor Wilkinson's research project, or any inclinations to reject it at a late stage in order to substitute that put forward by Professor Dee.
The future of the Nuclear Physics School at Glasgow, it has been suggested tonight, has been endangered by Professor Dee's application having been refused. However, I draw attention to the 300-MeV electron synchrotron to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred and which, I am advised, still has a useful life for several years. In addition, Glasgow will share very fully in the facilities which will be afforded by the grants given to the seven universities, which I have already mentioned, for a hydrogen bubble chamber and for film analysis equipment.
Professor Dee has been informed that it is always open to him to resubmit his application, either for this machine or for one similar, in future years, although it is most unlikely that the D.S.I.R. will be in a position to support before the financial year 1964–65, any further major projects other than those already announced but deferred. If he does resubmit his proposal, it will be reconsidered in the light of circumstances then existing, and on its scientific merits, in conjunction with any new proposals put to the Research Council at that date.
In answer to the hon. Member for Leith, I would say that my noble Friend has naturally always pressed scientific bodies to bear in mind Scotland's needs, as do the Government in their policy for the distribution of industry, but major grants for research projects have to be awarded solely on scientific grounds. I am convinced that the decision in this case, disappointing as it must be to Professor Dee, is one that has been taken solely on scientific grounds and on the best possible advice. There is a limited sum available to the D.S.I.R., and it must allocate that sum on sound scientific principles and in the interest of the balance of the nation's scientific effort.
Having looked into this matter very thoroughly, and having had long discussions with my noble Friend, I myself believe that we have reached a decision which, on scientific advice, is right. I also believe that it would be wrong for us to attempt to alter this decision on grounds other than scientific ones. In scientific matters, my noble Friend has to take the advice of his scientific advisers. I think that it would be very wrong of him to attempt to override them——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.